"I'd argue it WAS the beginning of the end in that the European nations had spent so much effort and resources into the war that they could no longer hold on to their territories abroad. The carving up of German-held African colonies was just easy pickings. They weren't held for long, really."
Wrong yet again. "They weren't held for long, really" Claptrap!
The British were rare in willingly giving up their colonies. France, Belgium and Portugal all fought intense Independence wars in Africa and Asia up until the late 1970's. The French and Portuguese armies both suffered heavy defeats and were forced out of their colonies.
With regards to the British, Roosevelt made it clear to the British Government that the Americans were not fighting to maintain the British Empire and any aid given to the British was to defeat Hitler. The principle of self determination for all countries (although didn't include US colonies such as Guam and Peurto Rico) was heavily emphasised in the North Atlantic Declaration set out by Churchill and Roosevelt in 1941.This led to suspicions by the Americans of any military suggestions by the British Government as an attempt to prop up the Empire.
After the war and the Election of the socialist Atlee Government the British made a conscious decision to decolonise as it was the only way they could fund their social reforms. The Americans also placed conditions on post war aid to accelerate the decolonisation process and the British economy was in no condition to maintain an Empire.
"Now at least come back with something which negates my point about the world being a worse place if the German/Austro and Ottoman despots had actually won that war."
Back peddling I see. My disagreement with you was not about "the world being a worse place". You are clearly having a discussion with yourself.
My point to remind you before you completely lose the thread was as follows ie your claptrap
The number of deaths from the 1st World War was over 15 million.. There was a similar number of injured. Presumably you (Sam) would describe this in terms of "Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price." as you do re. the Afghan war. "Given that it was the beginning of the end for European empires and expansionism"
I have already trashed your point about european empires, given that sixty years later, some European countries were still defending their empires for all their worth.
Your original point has been negated. The only sad thing is that you have moved on to make another completely different point.
!wink!
Cheers
D
10 years of afghan war
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Is that it, Samuel?
So I ask you, using your own phrase, here emboldened
"What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?
"Education for girls is the one that sticks out the most. And, yes, I think that one thing alone is worth it." Is that it? Northing else?
First point. For half a trillion dollars of expenditure the UK and US could probably take the next generations of Afghani children, teach them English, send them to English speaking private schools, followed by university and then send them back to revolutionise Afghani society. And we would avoid the deaths of over 35,000 children, adults (foreign and Afghani) in the process.
Second point. I will add some detail for you. What you do not address is that the improvements in education for girls which I applaud, will tend not to go swimmingly I suspect when the 140,000 troops leave Afghanistan in 2014. For example here is an extract from the Guardian a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-develo ... went-wrong
I draw your attention to the following:
The biggest achievement has been in education, with 2.4 million girls in school, although there is still a high drop-out rate and the numbers going on to secondary school are small. But the fact is that the conservative nature of rural Afghanistan has not changed fundamentally. Over the past 10 years a colossal $57 bn has been spent in aid in Afghanistan, but it has not had any impact on the entrenched attitudes shaping women's lives. The security situation has become increasingly dangerous in the past few years. A recent attack on local staff employed by Oxfam, which led to three deaths, is believed to have been caused partly by the practice of employing women. Attacks on girls' schools and women teachers continue."
So what is your solution Mr Slater given that spending 57 billion dollars in aid has not had any impact on the entrenched attitudes shaping women's lives? 250,000 troops to be stationed to try a super-surge and leave them there for a century? Is that the plan?
CHeers
D
"What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?
"Education for girls is the one that sticks out the most. And, yes, I think that one thing alone is worth it." Is that it? Northing else?
First point. For half a trillion dollars of expenditure the UK and US could probably take the next generations of Afghani children, teach them English, send them to English speaking private schools, followed by university and then send them back to revolutionise Afghani society. And we would avoid the deaths of over 35,000 children, adults (foreign and Afghani) in the process.
Second point. I will add some detail for you. What you do not address is that the improvements in education for girls which I applaud, will tend not to go swimmingly I suspect when the 140,000 troops leave Afghanistan in 2014. For example here is an extract from the Guardian a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-develo ... went-wrong
I draw your attention to the following:
The biggest achievement has been in education, with 2.4 million girls in school, although there is still a high drop-out rate and the numbers going on to secondary school are small. But the fact is that the conservative nature of rural Afghanistan has not changed fundamentally. Over the past 10 years a colossal $57 bn has been spent in aid in Afghanistan, but it has not had any impact on the entrenched attitudes shaping women's lives. The security situation has become increasingly dangerous in the past few years. A recent attack on local staff employed by Oxfam, which led to three deaths, is believed to have been caused partly by the practice of employing women. Attacks on girls' schools and women teachers continue."
So what is your solution Mr Slater given that spending 57 billion dollars in aid has not had any impact on the entrenched attitudes shaping women's lives? 250,000 troops to be stationed to try a super-surge and leave them there for a century? Is that the plan?
CHeers
D
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Wrong again, Sam
[quote]Wrong yet again. "They weren't held for long, really" Claptrap![/quote]
If it's wrong, show me how. It's obvious we differ on how long we deem 'not long really' because you already brought it up, further up the thread, and I already answered. Anyone can say 'claptrap!', it's showing it that counts and I reiterate that holding a colony for 30, 40 or 50 years isn't that long in the context of how long European expansionism had been going on for.
[quote]The British were rare in willingly giving up their colonies.[quote]
I never argued otherwise.
[quote]France, Belgium and Portugal all fought intense Independence wars in Africa and Asia up until the late 1970's. The French and Portuguese armies both suffered heavy defeats and were forced out of their colonies.[/quote]
Which they had a much easier time holding pre-WW1.
[quote]With regards to the British, Roosevelt made it clear to the British Government that the Americans were not fighting to maintain the British Empire and any aid given to the British was to defeat Hitler.[/quote]
Wrong war but I agree. You said yourself without WW1 there may have been no WW2 and no Roosevelt ultimatums about British Empire. Backs up my point nicely. Thank you.
[quote]After the war and the Election of the socialist Atlee Government the British made a conscious decision to decolonise as it was the only way they could fund their social reforms. The Americans also placed conditions on post war aid to accelerate the decolonisation process and the British economy was in no condition to maintain an Empire.[/quote]
As above. No WW1 = no WW2 = backs up my point nicely. Thank you.
[quote]"Now at least come back with something which negates my point about the world being a worse place if the German/Austro and Ottoman despots had actually won that war."
Back peddling I see. My disagreement with you was not about "the world being a worse place".[/quote]
Back peddling? You wish! It's easy enough to follow, I'm sure. If you're getting confused I'll remind you so you can follow my logic: my view is that the better world of today was worth 15 million dying for, given the likely alternative (being ruled by the 2nd Reich). You disagreed. I cannot fathom a good reason why you didn't think the cause those people died for wasn't worth it unless you think the result wasn't worth it (the result was Brit-style democracy dominating western Europe instead of despotic monarchies - in my opinion). I shouldn't have to repeat my points because you take us down little sidetracks when you can't win the original points.
We could debate this properly, where you give good reasons WHY you disagree with my views, or we can carry on where you just disagree, be critical, rude and sarcastic (not to mention child-like) where I answer numerous questions over multiple sub-threads, which is your usual style.
[quote]My point to remind you before you completely lose the thread was as follows ie your claptrap
The number of deaths from the 1st World War was over 15 million.. There was a similar number of injured. Presumably you (Sam) would describe this in terms of "Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price." as you do re. the Afghan war. "Given that it was the beginning of the end for European empires and expansionism"
I have already trashed your point about european empires, given that sixty years later, some European countries were still defending their empires for all their worth.
Your original point has been negated. The only sad thing is that you have moved on to make another completely different point.[/quote]
Not at all. All you did was point out some ex-German colonies was carved up between the older colonial powers, which they held for a period of 40-60ish years and this means the lives lost during WW1 were somehow worthless. You also made a point about WW1 being the key precursor to WW2. Both of these points have been taken and replied to in a polite way, usual to a debate. You've ignored my replies -by way of rudeness and childishness- and gone on to repeat yourself. This shows frustration because you cannot find good answers to my points.
Let me summarize our debate, which may throw some light on whether we're really just misunderstanding each other and you're here for the debate, or all along it was just about you ridiculing and undermining someone who has a different opinion to you.
1. I think some causes are worth dying for.
2. You seemed to disagree, citing the 15 million killed in WW1.
3. I conveyed my view that stopping despotic monarchies from taking over Europe was worth the 15 million killed because the two empires of the 2nd Reich, and the Ottomans would have enslaved Africa all over again. I said that WW1 was the 'beginning of the end' of Empire.
4. You came back with some facts about the allies carving up ex-German colonies and holding them a good 50 years more, attempting to negate my point about 'beginning of the end of Empire'. You also blame WW2 on WW1 which I assume is another reason you think fighting WW1 was a bad idea (or the deaths of 15 million weren't worth it).
5. I pointed out that given the centuries European expansionism had gone on for, 50 years more wasn't that long (1st point in #4 about carving up German colonies), and gave my thoughts on the likely outcome of avoiding a conflict with Germany and Turkey at that time. I explained that even if we'd negotiated peace it still would have been bad news for Africa, bad news for Jews across Europe and bad news for Russians, who would have had to fight Germany, Austria, Hungary and Turkey alone. I tried to say that such a war with Russia was inevitable and that this war, along with the persecution of Jews due to rife anti-semitism, would have led to more deaths than the 15 million you gave as your first example as to why my very first point to Zorro was, in your words, 'claptrap'.
6. You then repeat yourself about WW1 being a major cause of WW2 (I never really argued otherwise, only that WW1 and The Treaty of Versailles could be mutually exclusive and so didn't go against my overall point that the cause the 15 million died for was worth it) and come out with cheap, easy remarks about John Wayne films and George Bush.
I'll not summarize further because we just repeat ourselves and you continue to be more interested in undermining my intelligence and be rude.
As usual during our debates, it's me that bears responsibility of participating in a game where I have a barrage of questions thrown at me which I have to answer to win a goldfish........or something. If I fail you claim some sort of victory and if you run out of questions and realise you've lost you give a little smiley face and say no more about it.........sound familiar?
Anyway, my questions to you are:
1. What do you think the outcome of Europe, Africa, Russia and the Middle East would have been in the 20th century had we let the Triple Alliance, plus the Ottomans, do what they wanted unopposed?
2. What rights, freedoms and privileges are you willing to give up for yourself and others (namely blacks, Jews, gays and women) to get those 15 million people who died, back?
Whatever else you come out with, these are the two main questions I need answering to give me a better idea of why you think the way you do. I think I've been fair in answering your questions and open enough to convey why I think the way I do. I hope it's not too much to ask and that you keep your manners.
If it's wrong, show me how. It's obvious we differ on how long we deem 'not long really' because you already brought it up, further up the thread, and I already answered. Anyone can say 'claptrap!', it's showing it that counts and I reiterate that holding a colony for 30, 40 or 50 years isn't that long in the context of how long European expansionism had been going on for.
[quote]The British were rare in willingly giving up their colonies.[quote]
I never argued otherwise.
[quote]France, Belgium and Portugal all fought intense Independence wars in Africa and Asia up until the late 1970's. The French and Portuguese armies both suffered heavy defeats and were forced out of their colonies.[/quote]
Which they had a much easier time holding pre-WW1.
[quote]With regards to the British, Roosevelt made it clear to the British Government that the Americans were not fighting to maintain the British Empire and any aid given to the British was to defeat Hitler.[/quote]
Wrong war but I agree. You said yourself without WW1 there may have been no WW2 and no Roosevelt ultimatums about British Empire. Backs up my point nicely. Thank you.
[quote]After the war and the Election of the socialist Atlee Government the British made a conscious decision to decolonise as it was the only way they could fund their social reforms. The Americans also placed conditions on post war aid to accelerate the decolonisation process and the British economy was in no condition to maintain an Empire.[/quote]
As above. No WW1 = no WW2 = backs up my point nicely. Thank you.
[quote]"Now at least come back with something which negates my point about the world being a worse place if the German/Austro and Ottoman despots had actually won that war."
Back peddling I see. My disagreement with you was not about "the world being a worse place".[/quote]
Back peddling? You wish! It's easy enough to follow, I'm sure. If you're getting confused I'll remind you so you can follow my logic: my view is that the better world of today was worth 15 million dying for, given the likely alternative (being ruled by the 2nd Reich). You disagreed. I cannot fathom a good reason why you didn't think the cause those people died for wasn't worth it unless you think the result wasn't worth it (the result was Brit-style democracy dominating western Europe instead of despotic monarchies - in my opinion). I shouldn't have to repeat my points because you take us down little sidetracks when you can't win the original points.
We could debate this properly, where you give good reasons WHY you disagree with my views, or we can carry on where you just disagree, be critical, rude and sarcastic (not to mention child-like) where I answer numerous questions over multiple sub-threads, which is your usual style.
[quote]My point to remind you before you completely lose the thread was as follows ie your claptrap
The number of deaths from the 1st World War was over 15 million.. There was a similar number of injured. Presumably you (Sam) would describe this in terms of "Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price." as you do re. the Afghan war. "Given that it was the beginning of the end for European empires and expansionism"
I have already trashed your point about european empires, given that sixty years later, some European countries were still defending their empires for all their worth.
Your original point has been negated. The only sad thing is that you have moved on to make another completely different point.[/quote]
Not at all. All you did was point out some ex-German colonies was carved up between the older colonial powers, which they held for a period of 40-60ish years and this means the lives lost during WW1 were somehow worthless. You also made a point about WW1 being the key precursor to WW2. Both of these points have been taken and replied to in a polite way, usual to a debate. You've ignored my replies -by way of rudeness and childishness- and gone on to repeat yourself. This shows frustration because you cannot find good answers to my points.
Let me summarize our debate, which may throw some light on whether we're really just misunderstanding each other and you're here for the debate, or all along it was just about you ridiculing and undermining someone who has a different opinion to you.
1. I think some causes are worth dying for.
2. You seemed to disagree, citing the 15 million killed in WW1.
3. I conveyed my view that stopping despotic monarchies from taking over Europe was worth the 15 million killed because the two empires of the 2nd Reich, and the Ottomans would have enslaved Africa all over again. I said that WW1 was the 'beginning of the end' of Empire.
4. You came back with some facts about the allies carving up ex-German colonies and holding them a good 50 years more, attempting to negate my point about 'beginning of the end of Empire'. You also blame WW2 on WW1 which I assume is another reason you think fighting WW1 was a bad idea (or the deaths of 15 million weren't worth it).
5. I pointed out that given the centuries European expansionism had gone on for, 50 years more wasn't that long (1st point in #4 about carving up German colonies), and gave my thoughts on the likely outcome of avoiding a conflict with Germany and Turkey at that time. I explained that even if we'd negotiated peace it still would have been bad news for Africa, bad news for Jews across Europe and bad news for Russians, who would have had to fight Germany, Austria, Hungary and Turkey alone. I tried to say that such a war with Russia was inevitable and that this war, along with the persecution of Jews due to rife anti-semitism, would have led to more deaths than the 15 million you gave as your first example as to why my very first point to Zorro was, in your words, 'claptrap'.
6. You then repeat yourself about WW1 being a major cause of WW2 (I never really argued otherwise, only that WW1 and The Treaty of Versailles could be mutually exclusive and so didn't go against my overall point that the cause the 15 million died for was worth it) and come out with cheap, easy remarks about John Wayne films and George Bush.
I'll not summarize further because we just repeat ourselves and you continue to be more interested in undermining my intelligence and be rude.
As usual during our debates, it's me that bears responsibility of participating in a game where I have a barrage of questions thrown at me which I have to answer to win a goldfish........or something. If I fail you claim some sort of victory and if you run out of questions and realise you've lost you give a little smiley face and say no more about it.........sound familiar?
Anyway, my questions to you are:
1. What do you think the outcome of Europe, Africa, Russia and the Middle East would have been in the 20th century had we let the Triple Alliance, plus the Ottomans, do what they wanted unopposed?
2. What rights, freedoms and privileges are you willing to give up for yourself and others (namely blacks, Jews, gays and women) to get those 15 million people who died, back?
Whatever else you come out with, these are the two main questions I need answering to give me a better idea of why you think the way you do. I think I've been fair in answering your questions and open enough to convey why I think the way I do. I hope it's not too much to ask and that you keep your manners.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Wrong again, Sam
!grin! !grin! !grin!
This has all the hallmarks of a Slater argument.
To cut through your dross, try the following:
First check the subject of Frank's post which started this thread. I note you have really really struggled to answer my post with the subject A challenge for you, Sam to back up your initial comment on Afghanistan, re. "Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price".
You seem to struggle dreadfully when it gets to detail.
So here is some more detail for you. You stated the following, talking about 1918
"I'd argue it WAS the beginning of the end in that the European nations had spent so much effort and resources into the war that they could no longer hold on to their territories abroad.".
Obviously and it is beyond discussion to say "they could no longer hold on to their territories abroad" does not tally with the British, Belgian, Italian and French empires still being in existence over 50 years later". The breakup of the empires did not start til after the Second World War. The great majority of these empires were not reduced until the 1960's.
That is why the Second World War is a far more sensible trigger for the decline of empire. I love the maniacal, never say die Slaterism of
"Wrong war but I agree. You said yourself without WW1 there may have been no WW2 and no Roosevelt ultimatums about British Empire. Backs up my point nicely. Thank you."
!grin! !grin! !grin! !grin! Insane, but funny.
As for your "questions"
" What do you think the outcome of Europe, Africa, Russia and the Middle East would have been in the 20th century had we let the Triple Alliance, plus the Ottomans, do what they wanted unopposed?
2. What rights, freedoms and privileges are you willing to give up for yourself and others (namely blacks, Jews, gays and women) to get those 15 million people who died, back?"
You just don't get it do you? I am interested in facts, not your obsession with crystal ball gazing. Your questions above are non questions of the sort produced by 16 year old philosophy students. Can I assume you are not a 16 year old philosophy student?
My factual question to you for which you are apparently, totally and utterly unable to answer, apart from a vague reference to female education, is
"What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?"
If you can't answer this question sensibly in defence of your own initial post complimenting Zorro, then please don't waste any more of my time.
Cheers
D
This has all the hallmarks of a Slater argument.
To cut through your dross, try the following:
First check the subject of Frank's post which started this thread. I note you have really really struggled to answer my post with the subject A challenge for you, Sam to back up your initial comment on Afghanistan, re. "Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price".
You seem to struggle dreadfully when it gets to detail.
So here is some more detail for you. You stated the following, talking about 1918
"I'd argue it WAS the beginning of the end in that the European nations had spent so much effort and resources into the war that they could no longer hold on to their territories abroad.".
Obviously and it is beyond discussion to say "they could no longer hold on to their territories abroad" does not tally with the British, Belgian, Italian and French empires still being in existence over 50 years later". The breakup of the empires did not start til after the Second World War. The great majority of these empires were not reduced until the 1960's.
That is why the Second World War is a far more sensible trigger for the decline of empire. I love the maniacal, never say die Slaterism of
"Wrong war but I agree. You said yourself without WW1 there may have been no WW2 and no Roosevelt ultimatums about British Empire. Backs up my point nicely. Thank you."
!grin! !grin! !grin! !grin! Insane, but funny.
As for your "questions"
" What do you think the outcome of Europe, Africa, Russia and the Middle East would have been in the 20th century had we let the Triple Alliance, plus the Ottomans, do what they wanted unopposed?
2. What rights, freedoms and privileges are you willing to give up for yourself and others (namely blacks, Jews, gays and women) to get those 15 million people who died, back?"
You just don't get it do you? I am interested in facts, not your obsession with crystal ball gazing. Your questions above are non questions of the sort produced by 16 year old philosophy students. Can I assume you are not a 16 year old philosophy student?
My factual question to you for which you are apparently, totally and utterly unable to answer, apart from a vague reference to female education, is
"What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?"
If you can't answer this question sensibly in defence of your own initial post complimenting Zorro, then please don't waste any more of my time.
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
An apology
"I hope it's not too much to ask and that you keep your manners."
Well I have obviously failed that test. My comments such as "dross" and "16 year old philosophy student" are a bit over the top.
And I apologise.
As for the rest of the content of my message, I stand by it completely
Cheers
D
Well I have obviously failed that test. My comments such as "dross" and "16 year old philosophy student" are a bit over the top.
And I apologise.
As for the rest of the content of my message, I stand by it completely
Cheers
D
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Wrong again, Sam
Does it matter whether I'm a 16 year old philosophy student or a 35 year old chiropractor? Again, you're more interested in pulling bits out of me than having a sensible discussion about why we both have different ideas on a certain subject.
Of course you have no desire to answer any of my questions. You know you cannot debate anybody for long when you cannot fall back on google and wikipedia. Facts are relevant, obviously, but very safe. Debating is more than swapping facts, my dear friend. It's natural, and almost unavoidable to run through the 'what ifs' and hypotheticals when arguing over past events no matter what side you're on.
You yourself, to have an opinion on whether 15 million lives lost was worth it or not must have reasoning based on the result if no lives were lost. What that would have meant. You must have reasoning, outside facts, for instance, which means you preferred Ed Milliband over David Milliband for the Labour leadership. You couldn't make your decision on facts alone. If one argues we should all give children guns in school, whatever your stance you cannot rely purely on facts to argue for or against it. It seems you haven't grasped this at all or you're purposely avoiding anything outside the comfort of facts.
Be a good fellow and answer my questions, please. We can't move the discussion on if it's only to be a one-way grilling, as most of our one on one's have been in the past.
P.S. One of the first things 16 year old philosophy students are taught is the Socratic method. The basest form of that is questioning an opponent over and over until he or she contradicts him/herself. It's very easy to do about the simplest of ideas as paradoxes are around every corner. If anyone uses the tactic of unrelenting questioning it is you, my friend. Maybe it's time you grew out of it.
Of course you have no desire to answer any of my questions. You know you cannot debate anybody for long when you cannot fall back on google and wikipedia. Facts are relevant, obviously, but very safe. Debating is more than swapping facts, my dear friend. It's natural, and almost unavoidable to run through the 'what ifs' and hypotheticals when arguing over past events no matter what side you're on.
You yourself, to have an opinion on whether 15 million lives lost was worth it or not must have reasoning based on the result if no lives were lost. What that would have meant. You must have reasoning, outside facts, for instance, which means you preferred Ed Milliband over David Milliband for the Labour leadership. You couldn't make your decision on facts alone. If one argues we should all give children guns in school, whatever your stance you cannot rely purely on facts to argue for or against it. It seems you haven't grasped this at all or you're purposely avoiding anything outside the comfort of facts.
Be a good fellow and answer my questions, please. We can't move the discussion on if it's only to be a one-way grilling, as most of our one on one's have been in the past.
P.S. One of the first things 16 year old philosophy students are taught is the Socratic method. The basest form of that is questioning an opponent over and over until he or she contradicts him/herself. It's very easy to do about the simplest of ideas as paradoxes are around every corner. If anyone uses the tactic of unrelenting questioning it is you, my friend. Maybe it's time you grew out of it.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Questions answered/Your turn
1. What do you think the outcome of Europe, Africa, Russia and the Middle East would have been in the 20th century had we let the Triple Alliance, plus the Ottomans, do what they wanted unopposed?
I have already answered this question. I will answer it only once more.
I do not know what the outcome would have been. The reason I do not know is because I am not a crystal ball gazer. If all the might of the poltical, military and intelligence setup in the US and GB cannot predict what the result would be after Bush declared "mission accomplished" six months into the Iraq War, how on earth do you expect me to come up with any half sensible predictions about what might have happened in the completely different scenario you suggest above?
What I do know is what ACTUALLY happened after 1918. And what ACTUALLY happened was that the desire for revenge was so strong in the subsequent settlement was that the German economy was crippled and played a part in the successful rise to power of Hitler. I also know that ACTUALLY there was no gain from 1918 in terms of what you say "the European nations had spent so much effort and resources into the war that they could no longer hold on to their territories abroad.". I know this ACTUALLY because it is clear that the Allies' empires largely remained intact for 40 to 50 years.
2. What rights, freedoms and privileges are you willing to give up for yourself and others (namely blacks, Jews, gays and women) to get those 15 million people who died, back?
As I think you may understand this question is wrongly put. It assumes that there is a direct connection between the rights, freedoms and privileges which I have for myself and others (blacks, Jews, gays and women) and the deaths of 15 million people in World War 1. I dispute this connection. That is my point. You phrase this question in terms of "Johnson you must answer this question based on my being correct even though you don't think I am correct".
YOu may not choose to agree with my point but that is entirely your prerogative.
Now Mr Slater, are you going to answer the question I put to you about your stated view in response to Zorro's post
i.e. "What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?"
I realise you will ACTUALLY struggle terribly with this question because it has a factual content in its nature as opposed to monumental crystal ball gazing.
I expect you to be unable to answer. You were very poor on the detail of what AV actually did in terms of studies of its use elsewhere. As I recall coming up with all sorts of advantages which were not ACTUALLY backed up by facts.
Lets see how you do, Sam Slater!
D
I have already answered this question. I will answer it only once more.
I do not know what the outcome would have been. The reason I do not know is because I am not a crystal ball gazer. If all the might of the poltical, military and intelligence setup in the US and GB cannot predict what the result would be after Bush declared "mission accomplished" six months into the Iraq War, how on earth do you expect me to come up with any half sensible predictions about what might have happened in the completely different scenario you suggest above?
What I do know is what ACTUALLY happened after 1918. And what ACTUALLY happened was that the desire for revenge was so strong in the subsequent settlement was that the German economy was crippled and played a part in the successful rise to power of Hitler. I also know that ACTUALLY there was no gain from 1918 in terms of what you say "the European nations had spent so much effort and resources into the war that they could no longer hold on to their territories abroad.". I know this ACTUALLY because it is clear that the Allies' empires largely remained intact for 40 to 50 years.
2. What rights, freedoms and privileges are you willing to give up for yourself and others (namely blacks, Jews, gays and women) to get those 15 million people who died, back?
As I think you may understand this question is wrongly put. It assumes that there is a direct connection between the rights, freedoms and privileges which I have for myself and others (blacks, Jews, gays and women) and the deaths of 15 million people in World War 1. I dispute this connection. That is my point. You phrase this question in terms of "Johnson you must answer this question based on my being correct even though you don't think I am correct".
YOu may not choose to agree with my point but that is entirely your prerogative.
Now Mr Slater, are you going to answer the question I put to you about your stated view in response to Zorro's post
i.e. "What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?"
I realise you will ACTUALLY struggle terribly with this question because it has a factual content in its nature as opposed to monumental crystal ball gazing.
I expect you to be unable to answer. You were very poor on the detail of what AV actually did in terms of studies of its use elsewhere. As I recall coming up with all sorts of advantages which were not ACTUALLY backed up by facts.
Lets see how you do, Sam Slater!
D
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Questions answered/Your turn
Sorry for the late replies. Pretty busy this week and by the time I'm home, been to gym and cooked tea.......you get the idea. Anyway, lets crack on:
[quote]I do not know what the outcome would have been.[/quote]
I didn't ask you if you 'know' what the outcome would have been. I have the mental capacity, unlikely as it may seem to you, to know that no one could ever 'know' what would have happened. I asked you what you 'thought' would have happened. A clear distinction. Now you know exactly what I meant you can answer.
Here the question is again: 1. What do you think the outcome of Europe, Africa, Russia and the Middle East would have been in the 20th century had we let the Triple Alliance, plus the Ottomans, do what they wanted unopposed?
[quote]The reason I do not know is because I am not a crystal ball gazer.[/quote]
Quite correct, which is why I didn't ask you (see above). No one needs a crystal ball, however, to think how likely certain things would have played out. Again, part of the reason you voted Labour in the last election, or support Ed Milliband over David Milliband for the Labour leadership is based on what you think. Part of your judgement comes from weighing up the chances, faith and pure guesswork. You must think, for instance, that the Labour party would be doing a better job in government, right now, than the current coalition? It's not based purely on 'fact' but your thoughts about what they would do and the likelihood of it succeeding. I think I tried to point this out in my last post but it's been a while and you had no comeback to it.
[quote]2. What rights, freedoms and privileges are you willing to give up for yourself and others (namely blacks, Jews, gays and women) to get those 15 million people who died, back?
As I think you may understand this question is wrongly put. It assumes that there is a direct connection between the rights, freedoms and privileges which I have for myself and others (blacks, Jews, gays and women) and the deaths of 15 million people in World War 1. I dispute this connection. That is my point. You phrase this question in terms of "Johnson you must answer this question based on my being correct even though you don't think I am correct".[/quote]
Yes. I agree. Unlike you I concede points in a gentlemanly manner when I am wrong. The second question is purely based on you answering question one the way I would. It does seem funny how you misinterpreted my first question so easily (twice) and yet you were aware enough to see the fault of my second question. If I was a cynic I'd think you answered my first question wrongly on purpose!
[quote]Now Mr Slater, are you going to answer the question I put to you about your stated view in response to Zorro's post
i.e. "What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?"[/quote]
I thought I already answered this? I mentioned that Afghani girls are actually going to school now. This point may seem trivial to you, when you stack it up against the horrors of war but I think educating females and dragging them above the status of 'slave' is one of the biggest steps any society can make. For in Afghanistan under the Taliban 'slaves' is what they were. Pure chattel to be bought and sold. Fed, watered and used for labour until ready for mating. A bit like many used oxen in a pre-industrial Britain. I think that when you remove females from this cycle of ignorance then the society as a whole gains. It is thought, by many more intelligent than us, that their is a definite link between the education of women and baby/child mortality, for instance. Once you stop treating women as mere baby-farms to pass on your family blood-line you become, at least in my eyes, more civilised.
If in 10 years Afghanistan has regressed back to how it was before we got involved then we could then discuss if it was worth it. But right now that WOULD be crystal ball gazing........and I know how distasteful you find that.
[quote]I do not know what the outcome would have been.[/quote]
I didn't ask you if you 'know' what the outcome would have been. I have the mental capacity, unlikely as it may seem to you, to know that no one could ever 'know' what would have happened. I asked you what you 'thought' would have happened. A clear distinction. Now you know exactly what I meant you can answer.
Here the question is again: 1. What do you think the outcome of Europe, Africa, Russia and the Middle East would have been in the 20th century had we let the Triple Alliance, plus the Ottomans, do what they wanted unopposed?
[quote]The reason I do not know is because I am not a crystal ball gazer.[/quote]
Quite correct, which is why I didn't ask you (see above). No one needs a crystal ball, however, to think how likely certain things would have played out. Again, part of the reason you voted Labour in the last election, or support Ed Milliband over David Milliband for the Labour leadership is based on what you think. Part of your judgement comes from weighing up the chances, faith and pure guesswork. You must think, for instance, that the Labour party would be doing a better job in government, right now, than the current coalition? It's not based purely on 'fact' but your thoughts about what they would do and the likelihood of it succeeding. I think I tried to point this out in my last post but it's been a while and you had no comeback to it.
[quote]2. What rights, freedoms and privileges are you willing to give up for yourself and others (namely blacks, Jews, gays and women) to get those 15 million people who died, back?
As I think you may understand this question is wrongly put. It assumes that there is a direct connection between the rights, freedoms and privileges which I have for myself and others (blacks, Jews, gays and women) and the deaths of 15 million people in World War 1. I dispute this connection. That is my point. You phrase this question in terms of "Johnson you must answer this question based on my being correct even though you don't think I am correct".[/quote]
Yes. I agree. Unlike you I concede points in a gentlemanly manner when I am wrong. The second question is purely based on you answering question one the way I would. It does seem funny how you misinterpreted my first question so easily (twice) and yet you were aware enough to see the fault of my second question. If I was a cynic I'd think you answered my first question wrongly on purpose!
[quote]Now Mr Slater, are you going to answer the question I put to you about your stated view in response to Zorro's post
i.e. "What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?"[/quote]
I thought I already answered this? I mentioned that Afghani girls are actually going to school now. This point may seem trivial to you, when you stack it up against the horrors of war but I think educating females and dragging them above the status of 'slave' is one of the biggest steps any society can make. For in Afghanistan under the Taliban 'slaves' is what they were. Pure chattel to be bought and sold. Fed, watered and used for labour until ready for mating. A bit like many used oxen in a pre-industrial Britain. I think that when you remove females from this cycle of ignorance then the society as a whole gains. It is thought, by many more intelligent than us, that their is a definite link between the education of women and baby/child mortality, for instance. Once you stop treating women as mere baby-farms to pass on your family blood-line you become, at least in my eyes, more civilised.
If in 10 years Afghanistan has regressed back to how it was before we got involved then we could then discuss if it was worth it. But right now that WOULD be crystal ball gazing........and I know how distasteful you find that.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Sam
More rather meaningless pedantry from you, which totally avoids the question being discussed.
"I really can't believe you don't realise that the 2nd Reich and Ottoman empires wouldn't have killed many more people than 15 million, had we not stood up to them".
Unlike yourself, I do not know/think etc etc. whether more or less than 15 million people would have been killed if the Allies had not won the 1st World War. I do not have the Sam Slater crystal ball which provides such certainty in predicting what would have happened in totally different circumstances..
What I think is gobsmacking is that you find it very straightforward to post what would have happened if an event i.e. Allies winning the 1st world war had not happened. "I can't believe Johnson that you dont believe my crystal ball gazing which tells me that many more than 15 million people would have been killed in something that didnt happen, did happen".
On the other hand, if I ask you a question dependent on events that HAVE happened in the last 10 years of the Afghan war, costing over 35,000 lives, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and a deteriorating security situation viz a viz the Taliban, re. your all encompassing statement on Afghanistan
"Sadly freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price.
You flounder around like a fish out of water and purely talk about education for girls in the backdrop of a deteriorating security situation with the Taliban which is substantially undermining that education anyway.
So how has 10 years of fighting for freedom, justice, equality and tolerance affected the 28 million other Afghanis who are not girls in school? Many of whom continue to be in fear of their lives with the Taliban, warlords etc etc?
Your argument is typical Slaterism. A mixture of pedantry and verbosity based on crystal ball gazing, with an almost total lack of understanding of the facts related to what you choose to pontificate on.
Cheers
D
"I really can't believe you don't realise that the 2nd Reich and Ottoman empires wouldn't have killed many more people than 15 million, had we not stood up to them".
Unlike yourself, I do not know/think etc etc. whether more or less than 15 million people would have been killed if the Allies had not won the 1st World War. I do not have the Sam Slater crystal ball which provides such certainty in predicting what would have happened in totally different circumstances..
What I think is gobsmacking is that you find it very straightforward to post what would have happened if an event i.e. Allies winning the 1st world war had not happened. "I can't believe Johnson that you dont believe my crystal ball gazing which tells me that many more than 15 million people would have been killed in something that didnt happen, did happen".
On the other hand, if I ask you a question dependent on events that HAVE happened in the last 10 years of the Afghan war, costing over 35,000 lives, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and a deteriorating security situation viz a viz the Taliban, re. your all encompassing statement on Afghanistan
"Sadly freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price.
You flounder around like a fish out of water and purely talk about education for girls in the backdrop of a deteriorating security situation with the Taliban which is substantially undermining that education anyway.
So how has 10 years of fighting for freedom, justice, equality and tolerance affected the 28 million other Afghanis who are not girls in school? Many of whom continue to be in fear of their lives with the Taliban, warlords etc etc?
Your argument is typical Slaterism. A mixture of pedantry and verbosity based on crystal ball gazing, with an almost total lack of understanding of the facts related to what you choose to pontificate on.
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Comeback for you, Samuel
"Again, part of the reason you voted Labour in the last election, or support Ed Milliband over David Milliband for the Labour leadership is based on what you think. Part of your judgement comes from weighing up the chances, faith and pure guesswork. You must think, for instance, that the Labour party would be doing a better job in government, right now, than the current coalition? It's not based purely on 'fact' but your thoughts about what they would do and the likelihood of it succeeding. I think I tried to point this out in my last post but it's been a while and you had no comeback to it."
Your "thoughts", predictions or whatever you want to call them, didn't work very well in terms of your expectations/predictions for Nick Clegg pre-election , did they?
And yet you feel free to pontificate with apparent certainty about how things would have panned out with regard to completely different scenarios affecting three entire empires, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and German affecting most of the world and how it would have be worse than the 15 million deaths that actually happened in the First World War
Priceless!
Cheers
D
Your "thoughts", predictions or whatever you want to call them, didn't work very well in terms of your expectations/predictions for Nick Clegg pre-election , did they?
And yet you feel free to pontificate with apparent certainty about how things would have panned out with regard to completely different scenarios affecting three entire empires, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and German affecting most of the world and how it would have be worse than the 15 million deaths that actually happened in the First World War
Priceless!
Cheers
D