unlike Religion disease for the most part is not man made
Religion feels it is it’s mission to save those that do not want to be saved
The funny thing about religious persecution is that the majority of the time it is committed by other religions .
I some how feel both religions have turned into something neither God would approve of
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Iraq’s problems are directly linked to religion
[/quote]
Iraq invaded Kuwait because of religion? Ha.
The USA invaded Iraq because of religion?
I’ll grant you there is a Sunni vs. Shia thing, which can go under:
muslim vs. muslim under my “common denominator” thing.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally think you have no imagination , most wars and disputes are based on religious bias . Name one other factor that so much atrocity can be attributed [/quote]
Let’s just look at some of the big ones:
WWI – leftist expansionist governments butting heads
WWII – expansionist national socialists vs. expansionist communists vs. capitalists
Various USSSR and Soviet block internal struggles
Korea – expansionist communists
Vietnam – expansionist communists
Kuwait – oil or nationalism/expansionist socialist dictator, your choice
Iraq II – more of the same
The only religious wars I know about going on around the world are:
muslims vs. Russians
muslims vs. Chinese
muslims vs. Indians/Hindu
muslims vs. Buddists in various Asian countries
muslims vs. a largely nonreligious West
muslims vs. Jews all over, but primarily Israel.
And I see one common denominator to that.
[/quote]
Lol at the idea of the conservative great powers that waged WWI being described as leftist.
Relatively speaking, few wars have been waged for religious reasons. Religion, however, has more often exacerbated existing conflicts.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Name one other factor that so much atrocity can be attributed [/quote]
Power
Resources
/moronic bullshit.
I’m done interacting with you until you come back to Earth, or stop trolling. This is fucking ridiculous. [/quote]
Yes. Homo homini lupus. Man is a wolf to his fellow man.
Mater tua caligas gerit
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally think you have no imagination , most wars and disputes are based on religious bias . Name one other factor that so much atrocity can be attributed [/quote]
Let’s just look at some of the big ones:
WWI – leftist expansionist governments butting heads
WWII – expansionist national socialists vs. expansionist communists vs. capitalists
Various USSSR and Soviet block internal struggles
Korea – expansionist communists
Vietnam – expansionist communists
Kuwait – oil or nationalism/expansionist socialist dictator, your choice
Iraq II – more of the same
The only religious wars I know about going on around the world are:
muslims vs. Russians
muslims vs. Chinese
muslims vs. Indians/Hindu
muslims vs. Buddists in various Asian countries
muslims vs. a largely nonreligious West
muslims vs. Jews all over, but primarily Israel.
And I see one common denominator to that.
[/quote]
Lol at the idea of the conservative great powers that waged WWI being described as leftist.
[/quote]
The causes of WWI are extremely complex - more complex than any other war in history that I’ve studied. The most immediate cause however was the tensions in the Balkans; Russia and Austria-Hungary taking sides in those tensions and a disastrous set of alliances and diplomatic efforts. Basically, after the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand the Croats and Bosnian Muslims cracked down on the Serbs. Austria provoked war with them, Russia mobilised in response. Diplomacy failed and Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. Germany then sided with Austria-Hungary and as per their war contingency plan(Schlieffen Plan) they invaded France through neutral Belgium. Britain was then drawn in through their alliance with France and the Ottomans through their alliance with Austria-Hungary.
You may find this interesting.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
You may find this interesting.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1914(is).pdf[/quote]
I largely agree with the author but I think they take it a little too far. There was a sense of inevitability to the Great War which was partly down to alliances and mobilisation plans - specifically the Schlieffen Plan. Germany occupied the central position and as Napoleon demonstrated at Ligny and Quatre Bras the best strategy is to attack one enemy quickly with the bulk of your forces and overwhelm them before turning to face the other. This was the essence of the Schlieffen Plan and it almost worked. However Von Moltke used too large a holding force in the East and subsequently became bogged down in France losing mobility.
Interestingly Hitler faced the same problem in WWII and used diplomacy to overcome it - ie the alliance with Stalin.
You can find historical evidence to substantiate many interpretations. However, I think it’s pretty universally agreed that the Great War was predicated on the idea that war was bound to break out on the continent sooner or later, which probably made some statesman in some countries more willing to unleash it. This, coupled with large standing armies, was paralleled by other causes, including the entangling alliances, Germany’s desire for a more primary role in world affairs - i.e., “a place in the sun” (threatened Britain’s ascendancy and raised nationalist tensions in France), and continued conflicts in the Balkans (pitted Russia against Austria) and Morocco.
The Cult of the Offensive also played a huge role in the rush to mobilize. My original comment in regard to WWI was the frankly laughable comment that the great powers were comprise of “leftist” governments.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The Cult of the Offensive also played a huge role in the rush to mobilize. My original comment in regard to WWI was the frankly laughable comment that the great powers were comprise of “leftist” governments. [/quote]
It depends on what one considers “leftist.” Between 1871 and 1914, as Europe marched towards greater ascendancy, the most notable political development was the extension of the vote to working class males (i.e., universal male suffrage), which contributed to the rise of mass political parties and the need for political leaders to appeal to the wider electorate of the body politic.
I would agree that these changes took place in the continuing monarchial and aristocratic political framework, but democratic self-government was emerging in many nations, and to counter the growth of socialist ideas and appeal to emerging humanitarian sentiments in science, philosophy, arts and religion, governments began assuming greater responsibilities for social and economic discrepancies arising from industrialism.
France domesticated democratic republicanism in Europe under the Third Republic. After 1900 Britain saw the rise of the Labour Party, which dictated positive state intervention in social and economic matters that the older, more conservative laissez-faire doctrines would not have accepted. Bismarck’s imperial Germany, now under William II’s reigns, was moving towards a constitutional crisis over political democracy. Thus, though monarchial as whole, sans France and Switzerland, parliaments were growing in importance. Mass political parties were replacing the established oligarchic political organizations, and support was sought from a wider group of the electorate. Democracy was advancing, even within the status quo. By the late 19th century, most European nations (not including Russia, obviously) had written constitutions, guarantees of personal freedom, parliamentary and representative institutions, and some sort of limits on absolutism; universal male suffrage, as I previously noted, was emerging rapidly. These popular new political movements were convinced they were on the side of emerging progress, and they often gained political, economic or social rights for the groups that they represented.
Consequently, in the standard definition of the term, these were NOT trends towards a more conservative political philosophy - i.e., reactionary monarchism, pro-aristocratic and church, and opposed to all of the neo-liberal advances previously noted. These were progressive, liberal/radical, or what we would today coin “lefist” advances, promoted by the likes of John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and Ben Constant.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Iraq’s problems are directly linked to religion
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1167476,00.html
Russia , the jury is out
http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/russia-expanding-net-intolerance
I can see the common thread you refer to , I think it is part of the problem too but I think for different reasons [/quote]
If you look at the history of war, the vast, vast majority are not religious in nature, nor had anything to do with religion.
The main reasons for wars are: Land, Power, Money. Even many of the so-called religious wars, had the veneer of religion to cover up what is essentially a power grab or land grab.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally think you have no imagination , most wars and disputes are based on religious bias . Name one other factor that so much atrocity can be attributed [/quote]
Let’s just look at some of the big ones:
WWI – leftist expansionist governments butting heads
WWII – expansionist national socialists vs. expansionist communists vs. capitalists
Various USSSR and Soviet block internal struggles
Korea – expansionist communists
Vietnam – expansionist communists
Kuwait – oil or nationalism/expansionist socialist dictator, your choice
Iraq II – more of the same
The only religious wars I know about going on around the world are:
muslims vs. Russians
muslims vs. Chinese
muslims vs. Indians/Hindu
muslims vs. Buddists in various Asian countries
muslims vs. a largely nonreligious West
muslims vs. Jews all over, but primarily Israel.
And I see one common denominator to that.
[/quote]
Lol at the idea of the conservative great powers that waged WWI being described as leftist.
[/quote]
The causes of WWI are extremely complex - more complex than any other war in history that I’ve studied. The most immediate cause however was the tensions in the Balkans; Russia and Austria-Hungary taking sides in those tensions and a disastrous set of alliances and diplomatic efforts. Basically, after the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand the Croats and Bosnian Muslims cracked down on the Serbs. Austria provoked war with them, Russia mobilised in response. Diplomacy failed and Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. Germany then sided with Austria-Hungary and as per their war contingency plan(Schlieffen Plan) they invaded France through neutral Belgium. Britain was then drawn in through their alliance with France and the Ottomans through their alliance with Austria-Hungary.
[/quote]
I blame Obama.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally think you have no imagination , most wars and disputes are based on religious bias . Name one other factor that so much atrocity can be attributed [/quote]
Let’s just look at some of the big ones:
WWI – leftist expansionist governments butting heads
WWII – expansionist national socialists vs. expansionist communists vs. capitalists
Various USSSR and Soviet block internal struggles
Korea – expansionist communists
Vietnam – expansionist communists
Kuwait – oil or nationalism/expansionist socialist dictator, your choice
Iraq II – more of the same
The only religious wars I know about going on around the world are:
muslims vs. Russians
muslims vs. Chinese
muslims vs. Indians/Hindu
muslims vs. Buddists in various Asian countries
muslims vs. a largely nonreligious West
muslims vs. Jews all over, but primarily Israel.
And I see one common denominator to that.
[/quote]
Lol at the idea of the conservative great powers that waged WWI being described as leftist.
[/quote]
The causes of WWI are extremely complex - more complex than any other war in history that I’ve studied. The most immediate cause however was the tensions in the Balkans; Russia and Austria-Hungary taking sides in those tensions and a disastrous set of alliances and diplomatic efforts. Basically, after the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand the Croats and Bosnian Muslims cracked down on the Serbs. Austria provoked war with them, Russia mobilised in response. Diplomacy failed and Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. Germany then sided with Austria-Hungary and as per their war contingency plan(Schlieffen Plan) they invaded France through neutral Belgium. Britain was then drawn in through their alliance with France and the Ottomans through their alliance with Austria-Hungary.
[/quote]
I blame Obama.[/quote]
It was Hillary. Speaking of which, funny how she hasn’t released her birth certificate. What’s she trying to hide?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It was Hillary. Speaking of which, funny how she hasn’t released her birth certificate. What’s she trying to hide?
[/quote]
I am sure there is no shortage of skeletons in that walk-in closet…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Iraq’s problems are directly linked to religion
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1167476,00.html
Russia , the jury is out
http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/russia-expanding-net-intolerance
I can see the common thread you refer to , I think it is part of the problem too but I think for different reasons [/quote]
If you look at the history of war, the vast, vast majority are not religious in nature, nor had anything to do with religion.
The main reasons for wars are: Land, Power, Money. Even many of the so-called religious wars, had the veneer of religion to cover up what is essentially a power grab or land grab.[/quote]
I did not blame religion for every war , I blame religion for many wars , for religious intolerance , for basically imposing their will on others and castigating anyone that opposes or differs in opinion
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Iraq’s problems are directly linked to religion
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1167476,00.html
Russia , the jury is out
http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/russia-expanding-net-intolerance
I can see the common thread you refer to , I think it is part of the problem too but I think for different reasons [/quote]
If you look at the history of war, the vast, vast majority are not religious in nature, nor had anything to do with religion.
The main reasons for wars are: Land, Power, Money. Even many of the so-called religious wars, had the veneer of religion to cover up what is essentially a power grab or land grab.[/quote]
I did not blame religion for every war , I blame religion for many wars , for religious intolerance , for basically imposing their will on others and castigating anyone that opposes or differs in opinion
[/quote]
Isn’t religious intolerance what you are displaying here?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Interestingly Hitler faced the same problem in WWII and used diplomacy to overcome it - ie the alliance with Stalin.[/quote]
Yeah, but only kind of.
They divided Poland and initially, the idea was that he would throw everything at the Western front while only leaving two divisions to protect the East and Stalin was stacking up troops on the Polish border which is why the German forces rounded up so many of them during their initial strike.
Now there were plans to let Europe bleed out and then roll it up like a carpet on the Sowjet side but military strategists like to make plans for every eventuality…
Its really hard to say whether they both were playing each other and Hitler was faster on the draw or if that pact would have held.