Iran President Again Lashes Out at Israel

[kai]

thanks for the overview but what puzzles me is that are the palestinians the same people as the jordanians say, or correct me if i am wrong but wasnt the west bank jordanian and gaza egyptian. but wouldnt nation states be needed after the fall of the ottoman empire whch ruled vast areas of the middle east, it would be natural for the indigenous people to want to form nation states to take their place in the world. i can see a lot of mistakes by the british but they were left with the remains of someone elses empire to administer.

 

[Nehustan]

thanks for the overview but what puzzles me is that are the palestinians the same people as the jordanians say, or correct me if i am wrong but wasnt the west bank jordanian and gaza egyptian. but wouldnt nation states be needed after the fall of the ottoman empire whch ruled vast areas of the middle east, it would be natural for the indigenous people to want to form nation states to take their place in the world. i can see a lot of mistakes by the british but they were left with the remains of someone elses empire to administer.

Absolutely, and you may throw in the Lebanese, and Syrians into that equation too. You might be interested in learning about the Arab Rebellion (i.e. Lawrence of Arabia) and the formation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the 'Hijaz' (i.e. St. John Philby). There were promises made to the Arabs, which were very quickly forgotten after the defeat of the Turk. The Arabs had envisaged a unified Arabic Peninsula (apart from maybe Ibn Saud ), and had an idea of how that would progress, thus the nationstate was imposed. It's not like they didn't have their own ideas or concepts for their region, or that we organised a disintegrating rabble.

 

[kai]

thanks a lot its been interesting talking with you ----wil check out the arab rebellion

 

[greatcalgarian]

Absolutely, and you may throw in the Lebanese, and Syrians into that equation too. You might be interested in learning about the Arab Rebellion (i.e. Lawrence of Arabia) and the formation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the 'Hijaz' (i.e. St. John Philby). There were promises made to the Arabs, which were very quickly forgotten after the defeat of the Turk. The Arabs had envisaged a unified Arabic Peninsula (apart from maybe Ibn Saud ), and had an idea of how that would progress, thus the nationstate was imposed. It's not like they didn't have their own ideas or concepts for their region, or that we organised a disintegrating rabble.

That is the excellent planning of the British Imperialist during that time. Look at India and Pakistan, Look at Singapore and Malaysia, where the natural way of forming a nation with Singapore and Malaya was cunningly killed, and a Malaya with another two states in Kalimantan was made into a nation, where by the other two states Sabah and Sarawak together with Brunei should actually just form a nation by themselves or join the Indonesia. This is sad story, Britain planting the seed of trouble all over their previous colony, hoping the region to remain choatic, so that one day, British flag will fly again, where the flag never see any setting sun. Perhaps currently, it is the US flag that never see the setting sun. , and Britain just have to be the willing coalition partner, sharing some of the left over.

 

[kai]

That is the excellent planning of the British Imperialist during that time. Look at India and Pakistan, Look at Singapore and Malaysia, where the natural way of forming a nation with Singapore and Malaya was cunningly killed, and a Malaya with another two states in Kalimantan was made into a nation, where by the other two states Sabah and Sarawak together with Brunei should actually just form a nation by themselves or join the Indonesia. This is sad story, Britain planting the seed of trouble all over their previous colony, hoping the region to remain choatic, so that one day, British flag will fly again, where the flag never see any setting sun. Perhaps currently, it is the US flag that never see the setting sun. , and Britain just have to be the willing coalition partner, sharing some of the left over.

the end of the british empire was marred by many mistakes, but end it did, and i am pretty sure that the region was glad the british and americans managed to rid them of the japanese empire

 

[greatcalgarian]

the end of the british empire was marred by many mistakes, but end it did, and i am pretty sure that the region was glad the british and americans managed to rid them of the japanese empire

American empire is definitely better than the Japanese empire ( which is really short lived, and may not be considered to have established an empire). However, no empire at all is better than any empire, including the American empire.

 

[kai]

American empire is definitely better than the Japanese empire ( which is really short lived, and may not be considered to have established an empire). However, no empire at all is better than any empire, including the American empire.

The Empire of Japan or Imperial Japan (Kyūjitai: 大日本帝國; Shinjitai: 大日本帝国; pronounced Dai Nippon Teikoku) is a political term for Japan from the Meiji Restoration until the end of World War II all through World War I and World War II. The term was specifically assigned to Japan because of the goal to imperially expand their territorial control throughout Asia and the Pacific through military force. Ultimately, it became chief ally of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy's aggressive global policies as part of the Axis Powers of World War II fighting against the Allies with Emperor Hirohito as symbol and leader of Japan.
Politically, it covers the period from the enforced establishment of prefectures in place of feudal domains (廃藩置県; Hai-han Chi-ken) on July 14, 1871, through the expansion of Japan from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean during rapid industrialization and militarization of Japan, up until the formal surrender in September 2, 1945, when the Instrument of Surrender was signed immediately after atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by U.S.. Constitutionally, it refers to the period of November 29, 1890, to May 3, 1947.

please explain this american empire

 

[Nehustan]

American empire is definitely better than the Japanese empire ( which is really short lived, and may not be considered to have established an empire). However, no empire at all is better than any empire, including the American empire.

The Empire of Japan or Imperial Japan (Kyūjitai: 大日本帝國; Shinjitai: 大日本帝国; pronounced Dai Nippon Teikoku) is a political term for Japan from the Meiji Restoration until the end of World War II all through World War I and World War II. The term was specifically assigned to Japan because of the goal to imperially expand their territorial control throughout Asia and the Pacific through military force. Ultimately, it became chief ally of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy's aggressive global policies as part of the Axis Powers of World War II fighting against the Allies with Emperor Hirohito as symbol and leader of Japan.
Politically, it covers the period from the enforced establishment of prefectures in place of feudal domains (廃藩置県; Hai-han Chi-ken) on July 14, 1871, through the expansion of Japan from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean during rapid industrialization and militarization of Japan, up until the formal surrender in September 2, 1945, when the Instrument of Surrender was signed immediately after atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by U.S.. Constitutionally, it refers to the period of November 29, 1890, to May 3, 1947.

please explain this american empire

In all fairness it is quite often alluded to. It is however different in it's manifestation, if not in it's nature and is thus referred to quite often in both the media (where it is quite often immediately called anti-americanism) as neo-imperialism, but this term is also used with adequate exegesis in serious academic literature.

I think Chavez used it the other day during his trip to Libya, and ironically the Colonel dismissed the statement. I think Chavez has good reason to consider America as a manifestation of neo-imperialism given the situation in Latin (Central and South) America say over the last 30 years specifically, and one could argue back to 1945 and earlier.

A good book which covers this and Power (i.e. Hegemony and its maintanance generally) is 'Power and its disguises' written by the Gluckman professor at Manchester University, John Gledhill.

http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/socialanthropology/staff/johngledhill.htm​

the book is actually very cheap second hand at abebooks (a great resource!!!!) and definately worth a read if one is interested in political science from an anthropological perspective. It is a far easier read than it may appear, but like they say 'don't judge a book.....'

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=681381057&searchurl=sts%3Dt%26y%3D16%26isbn%3D0745316859%26x%3D43%26sortby%3D3​

 

[kai]

thank you nehustan, i will check the book out

 

[greatcalgarian]

In all fairness it is quite often alluded to. It is however different in it's manifestation, if not in it's nature and is thus referred to quite often in both the media (where it is quite often immediately called anti-americanism) as neo-imperialism, but this term is also used with adequate exegesis in serious academic literature.

I think Chavez used it the other day during his trip to Libya, and ironically the Colonel dismissed the statement. I think Chavez has good reason to consider America as a manifestation of neo-imperialism given the situation in Latin (Central and South) America say over the last 30 years specifically, and one could argue back to 1945 and earlier.

A good book which covers this and Power (i.e. Hegemony and its maintanance generally) is 'Power and its disguises' written by the Gluckman professor at Manchester University, John Gledhill.

http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/socialanthropology/staff/johngledhill.htm​

the book is actually very cheap second hand at abebooks (a great resource!!!!) and definately worth a read if one is interested in political science from an anthropological perspective. It is a far easier read than it may appear, but like they say 'don't judge a book.....'

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=681381057&searchurl=sts%3Dt%26y%3D16%26isbn%3D0745316859%26x%3D43%26sortby%3D3​

Thanks. Have to find some one to give frubals before giving to you again

 

[Booko]

Yeah, Sharon is evil.

I am? :help:

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I am? :help:

*hugs you* Don't worry. I'll protect you!

 

[Faminedynasty]

*hugs you* Don't worry. I'll protect you!

Protector of evil! There shall be no distinction between the evil and those who protect them!