Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:03 PM   #11

Cadell's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2007
From: Southern Vermont
Posts: 366

How about... Just about every large-scale conflict that has happened in Africa in the last 150 years. To be clear, I'm assuming you are referring to wars in the modern sense - aggression between multiple state entities - and civil wars - armed conflicts between competing powers within a single state.

Apart from the most obvious primogenitor of the sad state of affairs in that violence-sundered continent is the arbitrary division of the landmass between European powers in the last two centuries. I believe there is a polite euphemism for this: Colonialism. When borders were created, irrespective of the cultural identities that would be torn apart or find themselves bound to their historical antagonists, the groundwork for contemporary African politics was laid. The English were bad for the natives, as were the French, Portuguese, and later Germans. The Belgians were worse. But they only represent varying degrees of the same injustice.

As if to add insult to gaping flesh wound, European/U.S. economic interests didn't leave with their sovereigns. The obvious offenders are companies like De Beers, who profit off of the slavery of entire populations. Conveniently, they can blame the two-bit black dictator whose authority is due entirely to Western subsidies and espionage. The more insidious culprit is Western agricultural interests (and the organization of Capitalist economies in general) that encourage the growth of cash-crops in place of traditional subsistence food plots. Have you ever tried to eat Cotton? Tobacco? There is no better way to ensure near constant upheaval than endemic starvation.

There are also places like the Middle East, which makes the news more often. Maybe Palestinians would be a little less upset about things if they hadn't had their land torn out from underneath them 60 years ago, and turned into a European colony. That's what Israel is. So, if a conflict in Southwest Asia is tied to Israel in someway (hint: they all are), then the carcinogenic residue of Western influence can be found as well.
Cadell is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:09 PM   #12

Chancellor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The far North
Posts: 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by riczepeda View Post
I need help compiling a list of conflicts caused by Westerners. ex- the Pakistan and Indian conflict over the Kasmir region. and when i mean westerners i will like to stick to American, UN, EU, European involvement. Thank u guys
Define "Western", geographically, politically and historically.
Chancellor is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:16 PM   #13

Farinal's Avatar
Chapuller
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Constantinople
Posts: 2,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
Apart from the full-on Western Country Vs. Western Country Wars, e.g. Boer Wars, Balkan Wars, WW1, WW2, Falklands--I am hard-pressed to think of a war in the 20th/21st Century that has been "caused" by Western intervention. Almost every conflict since WW2 that has involved "The West" has seen the latter's involvement as either protectors of one side or the other from aggression or involvement to protect "Western" assets or influence from destruction or seizure. The glaring exception is the 2006 Iraqi war which was cynically planned and executed for the benefit of a handful of private businesses.
Really? US involvement in Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Libya and Arab Spring in general just comes to my mind in a second.

And as for the turmoils, the Cold War. Conflicts between NATO stay behinds and communists in various countries and proxy wars.
Farinal is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:47 PM   #14

Gudenrath's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Denmark
Posts: 2,433
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
That is my point Gudenrath.
It seems the US has its nose in every burp on the planet, meddling, when the rest of the West
looks on, either cheering us on, or rolling their collective eyes at our intrusions. It seems every
problem on the planet bothers the US, while the rest of the West might be upset with it, but doesn't
get involved like the US does. Seems we keep manufacturing our own problems and cannot
exist without having an international problem to saddle ourselves with.
Seems attempting to solves problems away from home,distract attentions
from the large problems at home.
I see. I misunderstood your first post.

The US is of course important, since it is still the major player internationally speaking due to its defense budget and its ability to speak as one federal nation. Europe will most likely never achieve this, in spite of it being potentially more economical and military powerful than the US if they ever could. The problem is that recently US foreign policy seems to have been dominated by very shortsighted domestic policy issues, and of course that would pose a problem for the rest of the "Western world" whether they choose to support the US or not.
Gudenrath is online now  
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:54 PM   #15

Cadell's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2007
From: Southern Vermont
Posts: 366

I think its important to realize that militaries defend the economic interests of their respective nations. The economies and the players on both sides of the Atlantic are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable, or at the very least, organized in a similar way. Whether it's an American or Dutchman or an Italian pointing the gun, the propellent is the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gudenrath View Post
I see. I misunderstood your first post.

The US is of course important, since it is still the major player internationally speaking due to its defense budget and its ability to speak as one federal nation. Europe will most likely never achieve this, in spite of it being potentially more economical and military powerful than the US if they ever could. The problem is that recently US foreign policy seems to have been dominated by very shortsighted domestic policy issues, and of course that would pose a problem for the rest of the "Western world" whether they choose to support the US or not.
Cadell is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:56 PM   #16

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,682

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinal View Post
Really? US involvement in Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Libya and Arab Spring in general just comes to my mind in a second.

And as for the turmoils, the Cold War. Conflicts between NATO stay behinds and communists in various countries and proxy wars.
But the US didn't start any of those wars. They were all Civil Wars that the US got involved in. *

*Iraq being the exception.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 05:00 PM   #17

Farinal's Avatar
Chapuller
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Constantinople
Posts: 2,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
But the US didn't start any of those wars. They were all Civil Wars that the US got involved in. *

*Iraq being the exception.
Arab Spring conflicts are arguable. The main point is the turmoil caused by US involvement made the issues much, much more worse.
Farinal is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 10:08 PM   #18

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Closer to Calais than to Birmingham
Posts: 4,386

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinal View Post
Really? US involvement in Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Libya and Arab Spring in general just comes to my mind in a second.

And as for the turmoils, the Cold War. Conflicts between NATO stay behinds and communists in various countries and proxy wars.
As I said in my earlier post, I am hard put to think of a war "caused by Western intervention".
As far as I recall, the Vietnam war began in 1945 and the US became involved in 1955 with advisors and only supplied combat troops in 1965.
In the other cases, with the already qualified exception of Iraq, Western intervention was to an already existing "turmoil".
By the way, does anyone think that the British intervention in Sierra Leone to stop kids having their arms hacked off by gangsters was a bad thing as well?
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 10:16 PM   #19

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Closer to Calais than to Birmingham
Posts: 4,386

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadell View Post
How about... Just about every large-scale conflict that has happened in Africa in the last 150 years. To be clear, I'm assuming you are referring to wars in the modern sense - aggression between multiple state entities - and civil wars - armed conflicts between competing powers within a single state.

Apart from the most obvious primogenitor of the sad state of affairs in that violence-sundered continent is the arbitrary division of the landmass between European powers in the last two centuries. I believe there is a polite euphemism for this: Colonialism. When borders were created, irrespective of the cultural identities that would be torn apart or find themselves bound to their historical antagonists, the groundwork for contemporary African politics was laid. The English were bad for the natives, as were the French, Portuguese, and later Germans. The Belgians were worse. But they only represent varying degrees of the same injustice.
This is straight out of the Little Marxists Guide to the Big Evil Capitalist World--probably the pop-up version. Simplistic rubbish!

Quote:
As if to add insult to gaping flesh wound, European/U.S. economic interests didn't leave with their sovereigns. The obvious offenders are companies like De Beers, who profit off of the slavery of entire populations. Conveniently, they can blame the two-bit black dictator whose authority is due entirely to Western subsidies and espionage. The more insidious culprit is Western agricultural interests (and the organization of Capitalist economies in general) that encourage the growth of cash-crops in place of traditional subsistence food plots. Have you ever tried to eat Cotton? Tobacco? There is no better way to ensure near constant upheaval than endemic starvation.
When we you last in Africa? How long have you lived and worked there? You are good 25 years or more out of date. It is the Ruandan, Ugandan and Zimbabean Army that have been raping the Congo these last years and the most common foreigner that you will see these days is Chinese.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 10:46 PM   #20

Lawnmowerman's Avatar
Cutting your grass
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,003
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinal View Post
Arab Spring conflicts are arguable. The main point is the turmoil caused by US involvement made the issues much, much more worse.
How????

IIRC foreign nations only got involved in Libya and the USA wasn't one of them.
Lawnmowerman is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
caused, intervention, turmoils, wars, western


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is military intervention good or wrong? Chancellor Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 November 13th, 2012 07:47 PM
Successfull Somalia intervention in 1993 Lawnmowerman War and Military History 12 September 20th, 2010 05:01 PM
Is breast cancer caused by Western Health styles? Sharks and love Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 September 6th, 2009 06:04 PM
The Spanish Civil War and Non-Intervention Lord Ragnar European History 37 June 20th, 2009 04:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.