The current Middle East mess is 100% the British's fault !!

[Islam Imamate]

I'm curious, as to when I ever suggested Europe was a peaceful place, though. Evidently, you also seem to think we as a society have learned nothing from the misgivings of our past.

There's this common perception that the Middle East is just a never ending warzone of savages and your first post ITT seems to be hinting at that.

Yes, because the middle east was a haven for peace and prosperity for the 1500 years leading up to WW1. More glory to the Ottoman Empire.

So to mention Europe is to point out that the dichotomy between the peaceful West and violent Middle East is something that happened recently given the relative stability under the Ottomans for 400 years. Really, about the same time Europe started to calm down with the end of WWII is when the Middle East heat up with the creation of Israel in 1948.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

one other thing to keep in mind: forcing democracy on people doesn't work, it does however when it's the result of natural dissent/revolution or whatnot.

See: the US forming out of a British colony versus the Native American Reservation system in the US and Canada.

that pretty much sums it up, another reason why the ME is f'd up. They bang goats and shit and rape kids, yet they're supposed to comprehend modern politics and social trends?

good luck w/ that

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

This idea that the Middle East is a continuous war zone is a bit inaccurate. Actually the region has found periods of stability under empires, the problem is its transition from premodern empire to modern nation states was done in a manner that created a few more challenges than the one your average nation state faces.

Under the Ottomans for instance things were fairly peaceful, more so than Europe really.

Again, I agree with regard to Empires generating a form of stability. A strong centralized government seems to be the best at implementing times of less fighting. From my perspective, I feel like if we're playing a hypothetical "what if" scenario, the best chance for the Middle East was to have been controlled by a powerful Byzantine state before eventually gaining independence. Obviously, a few things happened along the way (rise of Islam, Crusades, Mongol invasion) that prevented such a scenario.

I'd also be intrigued as to what time you're referring to for things being peaceful, if any in particular or just a few general sets of time (always looking for more stuff to read).

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

There's this common perception that the Middle East is just a never ending warzone of savages and your first post ITT seems to be hinting at that.

Sure, it was a sassy remark. To a silly generalization that it's all the British fault.

So to mention Europe is to point out that the dichotomy between the peaceful West and violent Middle East is something that happened recently given the relative stability under the Ottomans for 400 years. Really, about the same time Europe started to calm down with the end of WWII is when the Middle East heat up with the creation of Israel in 1948.

I don't think any region of the world is particularly peaceful, aside from the modern Western world, and that's merely because we legitimately cannot afford war with one another any more given our weaponry. The relative stability of the Ottomans happened to be the time period when Europe went back to fighting each other, and the Ottomans attempted to join the fray.

I don't think it's fair to hold up the Ottoman Empire as anything truly peaceful though. Certainly lots of Muslim blood was shed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Ottoman_Empire)

 

[freaky]

Wheres the picture of pre-ww1? And where's the history lesson of how middle east was pre-ww1?

From my understanding, they were always at war with one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East#Ottoman_period_conflicts_1453-1918

Look at that list of conflicts/wars.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

The carving up of the Middle East on arbitrary and contentious border lines was one of the most inhumane and idiotic moves in history. These fools from the UK decided to colonize an entire region without regard to religion, culture, or politics.

I know a lot of this took a big leap forward with Bush's horrific invasion of Iraq, but ultimately, it wasn't until the British (and Europe in general) invaded the Middle East that things got really bad.

Jordan, I dont think has ever been bad. Syria was not that bad up until recently. I am sure there were Zionists influencing British Foreign policy back then too. Didnt we back Saddam for prez of Iraq for a bit? And honestly Iraq was not that bad either. Both Murican and British interfered in Iran, and Afghanistan for a while.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

There's this common perception that the Middle East is just a never ending warzone of savages and your first post ITT seems to be hinting at that.

So to mention Europe is to point out that the dichotomy between the peaceful West and violent Middle East is something that happened recently given the relative stability under the Ottomans for 400 years. Really, about the same time Europe started to calm down with the end of WWII is when the Middle East heat up with the creation of Israel in 1948.

It is no more a never ending warzone than Europe and East Asia are. So western Europe decided to take a long hiatus after WW2. Means nothing, they will be at it again, probably sooner than later. Russia has been fighting quite a lot. Then there is the Yugoslav wars.

Southeast Asia has insurgencies going on. Its really is only a matter of time before China starts up shit. It is only inevitable. These things happen in cycles.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Wheres the picture of pre-ww1? And where's the history lesson of how middle east was pre-ww1?

From my understanding, they were always at war with one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East#Ottoman_period_conflicts_1453-1918

Look at that list of conflicts/wars.

Europe has been at war for a long time. Its just that they are in hiatus right now because WW2.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

The carving up of the Middle East on arbitrary and contentious border lines was one of the most inhumane and idiotic moves in history. These fools from the UK decided to colonize an entire region without regard to religion, culture, or politics.

I know a lot of this took a big leap forward with Bush's horrific invasion of Iraq, but ultimately, it wasn't until the British (and Europe in general) invaded the Middle East that things got really bad.

Ottomans and Persians were peaceful and tolerant hard line theocracies?

Might want to brush up on your history and Islam in General. Brits aren't making the Vatican of Islam publicly behead people.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

So? What business is it of Britain if another country wants to self destruct? Meddle with other people's affairs, expect consequences.

And Europe was "peaceful"? Really? "WORLD" war 1, 2, invasion and colonization of numerous countries across the globe with little or no provocation solely for Empire? Nuclear weapons, mass bombings with no regard for civilian casualties, Nagasaki, Hiroshima... I could go on.

The stupidity of some people in the war room is fkn astounding. People are people period, we kill, make war, and look out for our self interests regardless of culture or nation.

Europe never dropped a nuke on anyone.....

 

[Islam Imamate]

Again, I agree with regard to Empires generating a form of stability. A strong centralized government seems to be the best at implementing times of less fighting. From my perspective, I feel like if we're playing a hypothetical "what if" scenario, the best chance for the Middle East was to have been controlled by a powerful Byzantine state before eventually gaining independence. Obviously, a few things happened along the way (rise of Islam, Crusades, Mongol invasion) that prevented such a scenario.

I'd also be intrigued as to what time you're referring to for things being peaceful, if any in particular or just a few general sets of time (always looking for more stuff to read).

Under the 400 years of Ottoman rule the Middle East was relatively peaceful. In the last 100 years things started to unravel with the challenge of the Wahhabi and Mehmed Ali but even then I don't think the warfare matched the scale of what was happening in Europe(Napoleonic Wars).

Sure, it was a sassy remark. To a silly generalization that it's all the British fault.

Sure that's fair but a lot of TS' threads are like this.

I don't think any region of the world is particularly peaceful, aside from the modern Western world, and that's merely because we legitimately cannot afford war with one another any more given our weaponry. The relative stability of the Ottomans happened to be the time period when Europe went back to fighting each other, and the Ottomans attempted to join the fray.

I agree, few if any p regions are universally mroe peaceful than others. That's the point I was trying to make about the Midde East, that its only in the last 50-60 years that this level of warfare became common

I don't think it's fair to hold up the Ottoman Empire as anything truly peaceful though. Certainly lots of Muslim blood was shed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Ottoman_Empire)

They were an empire so of course they engaged in wars and conquered shit. I never said the Ottomans themselves were peaceful though, just that the Middle East under their control was. The exception would be the region around Iraq which was the rough border between the Ottomans and the Safavid Empires. Notice that in those list of wars almost all of the ones that take place in the Middle East are between the Ottomans and the Safavids/Persians. But aside from that and a few uprisings here and there it wasn't anything like the inferno that the Middle East is now or the inferno Europe was in the first half of the 20th century.

 

[deise69]

 

[dfoster]

lots of resentment after WWI.

 

[chubbman]

i wish we'd have colonized the rest of the world

 

[TheFirstEMP]

So? What business is it of Britain if another country wants to self destruct? Meddle with other people's affairs, expect consequences.

And Europe was "peaceful"? Really? "WORLD" war 1, 2, invasion and colonization of numerous countries across the globe with little or no provocation solely for Empire? Nuclear weapons, mass bombings with no regard for civilian casualties, Nagasaki, Hiroshima... I could go on.

The stupidity of some people in the war room is fkn astounding. People are people period, we kill, make war, and look out for our self interests regardless of culture or nation.

And that's why whiney pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalism, diversify everything and scream racism when it doesn't go your way liberals have no place in a strong society.

 

[Pwent]

"the fighting in the middle east is because borders were drawn without regards to culture or ethnic groups. if you force them in together, theyll fight!!!"

"we should let in a bunch of refugees, who cares if they have a different culture, cant we just get along"

 

[IDL]

Wasn't the primary purpose to essentially disassemble the Ottoman Empire?

 

[KantoTerror]

After that strenuous and exhausting world war 2....Europe is just brewing for another but now with the inclusion of some Arab Nations....

 

[TheStruggle]

I love it when people blame the west for the conditions in the middle east...like they haven't been fighting since the stone ages

 

[My Spot]

The British certainly didn't help things (especially further east in India/Pakistan) but that part of the world has always been volatile.