• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

North Korea

S

sanzar

Guest
CNN is the liberal over here...maybe that is a sign of how twisted our news is? I do, by the way, watch BBC World News. I also read all my news from bbc.co.uk. I've found it to have a better point of view on international politics (especially those concerning America) than what I can find here. So, New Nationalism? Good term, it's a scary thing.
[/b]

No I wasn't calling it 'New Nationalism', I was referring to how the concept of 'nationalism' in itself is a historically very new concept and is largely state created and therefore artificial... it's the reason that 'total wars' became possible in the early 20th century.
 
O

O'Rothlain

Guest
Nationalism is an ideology [1] that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief: above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, that each nation is entitled to its own state, and that the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation.[2] Nationalism refers to both a political doctrine[3] and any collective action[4] by political and social movements on behalf of specific nations.[/b]
Full Article
I initially assumed you were talking about "New" Nationalism as in a more intense form of the above. Just like there are the Neo-Nazis, and The Real IRA, I assumed you were speaking of the intense rebirth of Nationalism. Nationalsim has changed since my grandparents time. It has changed since the "World Wars" or "Great Wars." The infalibility of the state, and the idea of supremecy supercedes any sense of borders or the state. We (Americans) lived in a failed state of what the EU represents. By that I mean, we represent the worse case scenario for the European Union. America by its inception was a federation of states (ie New York was a sovereign state, The Commonwealth of Massachutses was a sovereign state...but connected by a federation of the former 13 colonies of Great Britain). Now, the states rights are largely ignored and the decline of the power of the state (and therefor the power of the people) has diminished greatly even in my short 27 years. With the recent additions of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security we are becoming a police state (and no, I'm not saying we're all big Sting fans). The National identity of America has evolved over the last 60 years (in my estimation) at a rapid pace. If anything it's the only thing that holds America together...we're so divided on every other point. The question is: Are We Too Large A Nation? Pride commeth before the fall.
 
S

sanzar

Guest
Nationalism is an ideology [1] that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief: above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, that each nation is entitled to its own state, and that the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation.[2] Nationalism refers to both a political doctrine[3] and any collective action[4] by political and social movements on behalf of specific nations.[/b]
Full Article
I initially assumed you were talking about "New" Nationalism as in a more intense form of the above. Just like there are the Neo-Nazis, and The Real IRA, I assumed you were speaking of the intense rebirth of Nationalism. Nationalsim has changed since my grandparents time. It has changed since the "World Wars" or "Great Wars." The infalibility of the state, and the idea of supremecy supercedes any sense of borders or the state. [/b]
It has indeed changed, but yeah, I wasn't actually wasn't referring to its current incarnation as "New Nationalism" (though I probably should have, because as you say it's a concept that has evolved dramatically in the last half century). Through this intense rebirth of the concept it is very interesting how the key claim about the importance of the 'nation-state' seems to miss the fact that no such state actually exists... By that I mean a state that is entirely made up and represented by a single nation... it's a highly romantic concept and one really just used (as you've pointed out) to achieve some degree of political unity so as to avoid major internal conflicts and keep the aid economic development.

We (Americans) lived in a failed state of what the EU represents. By that I mean, we represent the worse case scenario for the European Union. America by its inception was a federation of states (ie New York was a sovereign state, The Commonwealth of Massachutses was a sovereign state...but connected by a federation of the former 13 colonies of Great Britain). Now, the states rights are largely ignored and the decline of the power of the state (and therefor the power of the people) has diminished greatly even in my short 27 years. With the recent additions of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security we are becoming a police state (and no, I'm not saying we're all big Sting fans). The National identity of America has evolved over the last 60 years (in my estimation) at a rapid pace. If anything it's the only thing that holds America together...we're so divided on every other point. The question is: Are We Too Large A Nation? Pride commeth before the fall.
[/b]

And this is proof of it... things are deteriorating at a rapid rate, aided by many of the wonderful effects of economic globalisation, like the "race to the bottom" phenomenon (wages go down in developed states because many industries can't compete with cheaper foreign markets), and the general redistribution of wealth which has seen the largest gap between rich and poor in human history. This "New Nationalism" is a weak thread just barely holding things togeather (and it isn't just in the US), but it's not sustainable, as with rampant poverty and ever weakening social safety nets desperation and dissent slowly rises.
 
T

tituslechmakus

Guest
well i've noticed something in the last few months : in the origins of humanity, ppl were living separatly and they got all together (creating the first societies) to have, individually, a better life. helping each others was a way to have better chances to survive (when you build houses, its easier when 10 ppl build the 10 houses than everybody building his house alone)... so the society was made for each person. now its complitely the contrary, the persons are made for the society, you've got to work for it and if you don't, you become a **** ...
but what is the sense of that ? we are living for the society and when we are in the ****, the society is not here for us (most of the time you don't get any help from nobody when you are in trouble, depending on how individualist ppl in your country are ...) !!! this is a non sense for me ... the US, which is supposed to be the greatest country on earth, have let the 1 million inhabitants of New Orlean in the total **** when Katrina came ... i saw some reports on TV and i had the impression that the catastrophe was happening in a country like Nicaragua or Bangladesh !!!
 
O

O'Rothlain

Guest
New Orleans was a double-sided problem: 1. the majority of the people there are poor, 2. The government had no real plan (and by government I mean both local and federal) for anything on this scale. People don't like to believe that education has a real affect on people, but if you go to a highly uneducated sector of society you will be surrounded by people with poor decision making skills. Ignorance on everyones part is what really caused the aftermath to be as bad as it was. Unlike our friend Kanye West, it wasn't some sort of racial attack, it was just happenchance that New Orleans has a high make up of African-American people living in poverty. In a capitolist market you really have to work for your livelyhood. My wife and I both have to bust our asses to have the life we have...unfortunately there are people who can't (and some won't) do this. Should there be more government aid? Yes. Unfortunately, in our country, we have a horrendous scheme that makes up our Welfare Department. It is highly abused and the people that really need it, often have a hard time getting it. So, back to the point, New Orleans in many ways was a victim of itself. And that is more sad than it being something you could blame on the American government. It's a bi-product of the negative affects of Federalism, Capitolism, and the ever growing gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Back to this "New Nationalism" and the idea that Titus is posing with Society (in it's origins) are pretty much on target. America, for example, is a very self-serving nation. Think of Rome at its peak: The citizens in the city lived off of the back breaking work of the rest of the Empire. The oppulance (sp) of Rome was done by the work of the "outsiders." It was subsidised (sp) labor. Are we not doing the same today? Look at what happend: by the end the empire began to be divided because of the amassing of wealth in the far reaches of the Empire. The people doing all the work, were beginning to amass all the cash. So you have a giant swing in influence and this left the capitol vunerable to attack. Should America not be worried with all it's Walmart outsourcing?
 
T

tituslechmakus

Guest
hum this was not the only cause of the empire's implosion ... the fact that they had not big war campaigns to do anymore (and all its slaves and plundering that it was providing) led to that. they had not enough slaves for the bad work and not enough money comming in ...

but its not the point ... America and in a less important mesure Europe, are leading this way with this ultra liberalism ... this is one of the main reasons why france voted NO in the EU referendum (we don't want the money to rule ENTIERLY our lives as it is in USA), even if capitalism is necessary. But not ultra capitalism ... whereas comunism is a huge pile of crap, due to human nature of possessing things and private life. there will always be ppl interested in power where it is not supposed to be in comunism. see what it did with guys like Stalin !!!
 
O

O'Rothlain

Guest
Look at what it's done to North Korea (getting back to the subject...nice segway if I must admit myself). Regardless of my complaints I'm quite thankful that I do have the freedom of information. Being able to read various opinions, do adequate research and to be able to form your own, educated opinion is a blessing. I guess blessing might be an odd term, seeing as I believe it is a devine human right, but I guess as they say, it could always be worse.

People often misquote the Bible by saying that "Money is the root of all evil." That is wrong. Correctly it is "The Love of Money is the root of all evil." By this we mean GREED. This, is in reference to your comments on Stalin and the thirst of Power. Having millions of Dollars, Pounds, Rubels, Pesos, Euros (or whatever) dangled in front of your face is hard to ignore. It goes to the question of "What would you do for a million (in your terms) quid?" What wouldn't you do? In a society that challenges the validity of social ethics, where do we draw an ethical line? Read about the story of Saddam...started off as a thug, and ended up Supreme Ruler and Commander. Also, the story behind the French Revolution is quite interesting. Look at Maximilien Robespierre: He started off hating a supreme ruler, but by the end thought that is what France needed to be stable. It led to his head and body parting ways.

Power makes people delusional. Kim Jung Il is a perfect example. He's telling his people they are ready for war with America. I hope that my leaders aren't considering it, but if they did, let's be honest, N. Korea wouldn't stand a chance.

Why can't we settle our disagreements through sport? Wouldn't that be nice?
 
R

Ripper

Guest
russianbasketball.jpg
 
B

BigTen

Guest
I am going to go a little off-topic here and say that the USA are unable to "win" the "war" in Iraq. And this basically comes down to the fact that their knowledge and understanding of the outside world is very limited. The USA's army effectively broke the Iraqi army early and thought that would win the war and didn't realise that by removing the only thing that kept the country from breaking into civil war (which it is now) would render the war unwinnable.

John Keegan, the influential British military historian, has bascially said that the USA should not have removed the Iraqi army but rather worked with them after their defeat to ensure a rapid change to democracy after the war.

The sad thing is that because the USA army did not learn the lessons from Vietname they have doomed a whole nation to the misery of a bloody and seemingly unending war. The individual Iraqi is living a horrendous existence because of the incompetency of the USA.

The USA started this war and they have the moral obligation to stay in Iraq until there is peace there - or at least some sort of order. To cut and run now would be an absolute disgrace but so would running a campaign tht is totally ineffective (which they have done up to now). However it is also immoral to ignore the Geneva Convention and even legislate for this ignoring so I, sadly, do not expect much from our American friends in the military.

The only good thing about the Iraqi war is that it is stopping the Amercians from blasting into Iran or North Korea and triggering total world destruction.

* * * * * *

Also back to some other stuff - to say that (I forget who said it) that the Amercans ensured the safety of the Pacific is still lame - the only reason that Australia and NZ were totally vulnerable was because her soldiers were in Europe trying to threat off a threat that the Americans were really too concerned about.

Although I must mention that a lot of individual Americans did the right thing and entered the war before their own country did. At least there are people in America who have the bravery and strength to do the right thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keegan
 
R

Ripper

Guest
So what, you saying that the Australians and New Zealands could've defeated the Japanese in the Pacific by themselves if thier troops had stayed at home?
 
T

tituslechmakus

Guest
I am going to go a little off-topic here and say that the USA are unable to "win" the "war" in Iraq. And this basically comes down to the fact that their knowledge and understanding of the outside world is very limited. The USA's army effectively broke the Iraqi army early and thought that would win the war and didn't realise that by removing the only thing that kept the country from breaking into civil war (which it is now) would render the war unwinnable.

John Keegan, the influential British military historian, has bascially said that the USA should not have removed the Iraqi army but rather worked with them after their defeat to ensure a rapid change to democracy after the war.

The sad thing is that because the USA army did not learn the lessons from Vietname they have doomed a whole nation to the misery of a bloody and seemingly unending war. The individual Iraqi is living a horrendous existence because of the incompetency of the USA.

The USA started this war and they have the moral obligation to stay in Iraq until there is peace there - or at least some sort of order. To cut and run now would be an absolute disgrace but so would running a campaign tht is totally ineffective (which they have done up to now). However it is also immoral to ignore the Geneva Convention and even legislate for this ignoring so I, sadly, do not expect much from our American friends in the military.

The only good thing about the Iraqi war is that it is stopping the Amercians from blasting into Iran or North Korea and triggering total world destruction.

* * * * * *

Also back to some other stuff - to say that (I forget who said it) that the Amercans ensured the safety of the Pacific is still lame - the only reason that Australia and NZ were totally vulnerable was because her soldiers were in Europe trying to threat off a threat that the Americans were really too concerned about.

Although I must mention that a lot of individual Americans did the right thing and entered the war before their own country did. At least there are people in America who have the bravery and strength to do the right thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keegan
[/b]

and the main problem of mankind is our unability to remember what is the history, after 2 generations (and sometime less, see the viet-nam/iraq wars as you said).
the big problem in that war is that America can't stay in irak and they can't move. you said well why they can't go away but you didn't say that they can't also stay in there. they look like an invasion army (by invasion i mean a tyranical army) for the irak ppl, where they want to be a liberator one. how would you react if you had a foreign army in your country ??? it excites the passions and leads civilians to war. but at least it keeps US army focused on irak ...
 
B

BigTen

Guest
So what, you saying that the Australians and New Zealands could've defeated the Japanese in the Pacific by themselves if thier troops had stayed at home?
[/b]

No. Quite clearly I did not say that. At the time the Japanese would have struggled to have launched a successful campaign against New Zealand and Australia. Geographically Australia is a very difficult land to invade. You have to have a huge supply line and that makes yourself vulnerable to attack. Also New Zealand is prime guerilla war real estate and even though a large force could take it the losses would be very, very high.

If the USA had not entered the war when they did the political and geographical shape of the world would be very different today. However to say that Kiwis and Aussies owe their freedom to the USA is taking it too far. I owe my freedom today to people like my grandfather and his brothers for travelling to the other side of the world and risking their own lives to fight a war that they believed in and not to a country that limped into the war once the two main protaginists had fought themselves to a standstill.

Oh and for all you conspiracy theorists out there the UK definitely held back intelligence on the impending Pearl Harbour attack.
 
T

tituslechmakus

Guest
So what, you saying that the Australians and New Zealands could've defeated the Japanese in the Pacific by themselves if thier troops had stayed at home?

No. Quite clearly I did not say that. At the time the Japanese would have struggled to have launched a successful campaign against New Zealand and Australia. Geographically Australia is a very difficult land to invade. You have to have a huge supply line and that makes yourself vulnerable to attack. Also New Zealand is prime guerilla war real estate and even though a large force could take it the losses would be very, very high.

If the USA had not entered the war when they did the political and geographical shape of the world would be very different today. However to say that Kiwis and Aussies owe their freedom to the USA is taking it too far. I owe my freedom today to people like my grandfather and his brothers for travelling to the other side of the world and risking their own lives to fight a war that they believed in and not to a country that limped into the war once the two main protaginists had fought themselves to a standstill.

its guys like your grand father that i will always thank and not the governments... the only guys that risked their lives ... even if the decisions came from the governments, they entered the war only with a strategic purpose ... on the contrary to the soldiers who came to die on our beaches ... THEY came for freedom. so if your gran father is still alive (what i hope) you could thank him, coming from a frenchman, for what he did 60 years ago ...


[/quote]


Oh and for all you conspiracy theorists out there the UK definitely held back intelligence on the impending Pearl Harbour attack.
[/quote]

i know ! it has came out only a month ago ... strategic stuffs. don't tell me that our countries act only for freedom ... pffff damn bullshit ! only the ppl who fight are liberators and not the ones who decides. btw also thanks to the rosbeef soldiers that helped us !!!
 
W

wigan_rlfc

Guest
Some countries need a good old fashioned tyranical dictator. Just look whats happening in Iraq now that Saddam is gone.
 
T

tituslechmakus

Guest
:) i just love your expression :) i didn't know you could have it in english : a good old fashioned tyranical dictator :) lol un bon vieux dictateur tyranique ...
but to reply to your comment, concernig irak, i'm not sure of that... i think its hell of the mess out there 'cause of an american strategical error (well another 'cause there were a few lol) : they thought that ending saddam's regim and caming as liberator would give them the population's collaboration. but this is not the same culture as USA and the population percived it as another threat. they had the occasion to fight for their freedom + all the islamists (extremist muslims, 'cause all the muslims are not islamists) trying to create an islamic republik, like iran (who give them money btw).
 
O

O'Rothlain

Guest
Some countries need a good old fashioned tyranical dictator. Just look whats happening in Iraq now that Saddam is gone.
[/b]
I hate to admit it, but there is some truth to it. It shouldn't be that way, but the nature of humans is to seek an absolute power. Call this the eternal quest for God. It's probably why most Dictators/Emporers/Kings/Pharos have declared themselves either God, or God's human representation.
 
T

tituslechmakus

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
Some countries need a good old fashioned tyranical dictator. Just look whats happening in Iraq now that Saddam is gone.
[/b]
I hate to admit it, but there is some truth to it. It shouldn't be that way, but the nature of humans is to seek an absolute power. Call this the eternal quest for God. It's probably why most Dictators/Emporers/Kings/Pharos have declared themselves either God, or God's human representation.
[/b][/quote]

i think he means more a dictator for mess control !?
 
R

Ripper

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
So what, you saying that the Australians and New Zealands could've defeated the Japanese in the Pacific by themselves if thier troops had stayed at home?
[/b]

No. Quite clearly I did not say that. At the time the Japanese would have struggled to have launched a successful campaign against New Zealand and Australia. Geographically Australia is a very difficult land to invade. You have to have a huge supply line and that makes yourself vulnerable to attack. Also New Zealand is prime guerilla war real estate and even though a large force could take it the losses would be very, very high.

If the USA had not entered the war when they did the political and geographical shape of the world would be very different today. However to say that Kiwis and Aussies owe their freedom to the USA is taking it too far. I owe my freedom today to people like my grandfather and his brothers for travelling to the other side of the world and risking their own lives to fight a war that they believed in and not to a country that limped into the war once the two main protaginists had fought themselves to a standstill.

Oh and for all you conspiracy theorists out there the UK definitely held back intelligence on the impending Pearl Harbour attack.
[/b][/quote]

But surely you could see Americas reasons for staying out of World War II, especially after the way they were slaughtered in World War One, why should they have fought in a European War? It affected New Zealand because back than We relied on England for everything.

And last time I checked, there is more to the Pacific than Australia and New Zealand, Japan rolled the British and the French elsewhere, and Darwin was destroyed easy enough, I highly doubt Australia, let alone NZ had the sort of Air Defences to stop that happening all over the country. Sure, your (and my Grandparents) we owe everything, but to say America don't deserve any gratidude for their role in almost singlehandily driving back the Japanese and retaking the Pacific, as well as thier efforts in the European theatre?
 

Latest posts

Top