White-faced refugees from Islam

[Chlp]

paul101 said:

I think too much is made of the achievements in the middle east re science and maths... How many from islamic nations have won nobel prizes in maths and sciences?

In its early history, Islam was a lot more enlightened than Europe. While Europe was still dark, feudal, and medieval, arts and sciences flourished under Islam. This is not a myth or some sort of PC rationalization--this is a plain historical fact. Even in terms of what we today call human rights, believe it or not, there was a period when the Jews were fleeing the pogroms in Europe to find shelter in Muslim countries. As all non-Muslims, they were second-class citizens with limited rights, but it was a lot better than the treatment they received in Europe.

 

Of course, Islam has completely lost its former glory and, as you point out, today its achievements and contributions to science are negligible.

[chuckwoww]

Never been able to understand ths argument, where was the oil in germany,korea, vietnam, grenada, somalia, afghanistan etc etc etc. To suggest that USA foreign intervention in the middle east is about oil just does not stand up IMO, after all if it was why not have spent the billions spent on the war to stock up on oil and save yourself the trouble? But if it was all about oil then the 'cheap price' never seemed to have come about. There is plenty of oil, it's the processing capacity that's lacking I think.

 

Of course oil is the reason for Western intervention in the region. All the other reasons given (protect Israel, WMD, turning muslims into Christian democrats) are just excuses. If there was no oil there they would be left alone to study their Korans and squabble over tribal boundaries. Oil is their curse and their blessing and the reason they get manipulated and humiliated. Even if a powerful secular leader was to unify the whole region the West would knock him off.

[BelgianBoy]

Chlp said:

Of course, Islam has completely lost its former glory and, as you point out, today its achievements and contributions to science are negligible.

er..... religion never contribute to science, on the contrary... but people do contribute, whatever their faith.

 

BB

[David_66_UK]

where was the oil in germany,korea, vietnam, grenada, somalia, afghanistan etc etc etc.

 

It's not JUST oil, it's whatever resources that are needed at the time - I think usually all of them

 

Korea, Vietnam and Grenada were just proxy wars with the communists over future control of resources, not neccesarily in the places the wars were fought.

 

Afghanistan was a mixture of revenge and pragmatism (and IMHO had to be done).

 

Somalia was just a dumb idea, partly from wanting to help and partly from believing their own propaganda that everyone loves America and what it stands for.

 

Why did the USA fight Germany? (obviously I won't say declare war : - it was because they were controlled by all these beastly Nazi's who were not nice people.......... and possibly also because once Germany had conquered Russia it would have had access to ALL the resources (including oil, land and cheap labour) which it could ever have dreamt of.

 

..........And then of course they could very easily have mopped up us Brits in the Middle East and India - whilst I am sure that were plenty of folk in Britain fighting "on principle" (because they did not like what the Nazi's represented and also because they were Foreigners and Germans, where it was kinda traditional), plenty more were fighting because they were told it was the right thing to be doing and their were plenty of folk in the British establishement who would have been prepared to strike a deal, if the price of doing otherwise became too high (eg loss of Middle East, India and the colonies - and also being bombed day after day whilst the Navy was slowly sunk, with the ever increasing risk of invasion).

 

The Germans would never have actually needed to invade Britain (and overcome "the worlds greatest anti-tank ditch") for a more pragmatic government to appear with a new policy (as an example, Britain (and I think the US?) sent troops to fight the Soviets back in the 1920's(?), because they were "bad", then forged an alliance with them against the Jerries (without waiting for them to become "good") and then despite knowing what they represented and the threat they posed to Britain and it's interests in Europe and around the world decided to take a pragmatic approach which avoided trying to fight them militarily "just" because of principle. Pragmatism over principle.

 

IMHO ( ) The Americans are not always as dumb as they appear as IMHO Germany would have HAD to fight them at some stage, before the US armed themselves and to ensure that the USA did not later become a comeptitor. With a route through Russia they could have pretty much driven there, negating the effect of "the worlds greatest anti-aircraft ditch". Even without actually invading, someone similar to a President Charles W. :: Lindbergh would not have been impossible to get elected.

 

Far fetched? Probably. But I have way toooooo much time on my hands. :D

[David_66_UK]

The combined exports from ALL Arab countries, excluding oil, are less than exports of Finland

 

It's seems to be working then.

 

the U.S. would be waging wars on China and India, who are projected to become superpowers within a few decades.

 

Be interesting to see how the Chinese thing works out. I think the Chinese take a slightly longer view than the USA and the west........they may have been a basket case for the last few hundred years, but I think that for MOST of their history they have been pretty much no 1 in their known world (with ups and downs). China did not get that big by accident. I think they are pretty much as bad as us Europeans when it comes to expansion ::

 

IMHO India has just never been unified enough to be much of a threat - I believe that "India" is pretty much a British invention.

 

Wayyyyyyyy tooooo much time on my hands :D

[chuckwoww]

"Somalia was just a dumb idea, partly from wanting to help and partly from believing their own propaganda that everyone loves America and what it stands for."

 

I think there were sound strategic reasons for the Somalia affair (billed as humanitarian). The US had a lot of forces in the region after Gulf War 1 and somebody thought a base on the Horn of Africa would be nice.

[David_66_UK]

and somebody thought a base on the Horn of Africa would be nice

 

Probably............and that's was likely the limit of the advance planning ::

[Chlp]

BelgianBoy said:

er..... religion never contribute to science, on the contrary... but people do contribute, whatever their faith.

That's a very simplistic view.

 

Religion is part of the culture and it can help create environment that fosters scientific conquest, just like it can (and usually does) the opposite.

 

Islam in its early history was such a force. Another example would be Jesuits and several other Catholic societies which produced some of the most educated men of its times.

[Flashermac]

<< IMHO India has just never been unified enough to be much of a threat - I believe that "India" is pretty much a British invention. >>

 

 

The only times India has been united has been under a conqueror. British India probably should have become a federation -- or been divided into 4 or so seperate countries. (There are still more Muslims in India than in Pakistan!)

 

China has been the "big guy" in eastern Asia largely by numbers. The Chinese could simply walk over all of the smaller nations. And nowadays the PRC is following Stalin's pattern and changing the population in outlying areas. The red gummint is creating Chinese cities in the western Muslim populated provinces, just as it tried to bring tens of thousands of Chinese into Tibet. They have more or less resettled Manchuria with Chinese immigrants long ago.

[Flashermac]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4468810.stm