Is Italy the Latest Failed Euro State?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The general populace or the government and state controlled media? The Lybians seem to be quite pleased at our help liberating them.

We also spend one of the highest percentages of GDP in the world on foreign aid, largely to Arab and African nations.

---

I have no doubt this is true, but are we talking about nations you "took an interest in" in a different way in the past? :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I have no doubt this is true, but are we talking about nations you "took an interest in" in a different way in the past? :o

---

Like Indonesia and the Netherlands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

No. This'd be the beginning of the end of the Sitzkrieg.

---

Sitzkrieg, great! :up: If just Helmut was still in the office :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Like Indonesia and the Netherlands?

---

Yeah, exactly. Although to be fair I think Britain is perhaps the only European nation that really still celebrates, or even remembers, it's own imperial past.

While some only want to highlight the negatives, there's quite a lot to be proud about in our imperial history.

Well, I can think of one thing. What've you got?

Quite a few, for one the abolition of the slave trade.

Merging a bunch of tribal fiefdoms into viable states. Imposition of a common language on disparate groups. Creation of infrastructure and a semblance of a mass education system. The banning of some social practices that we deem incredibly immoral (slavery for one). Creating a global economic and political structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Merging a bunch of tribal fiefdoms into viable states. Imposition of a common language on disparate groups. Creation of infrastructure and a semblance of a mass education system. The banning of some social practices that we deem incredibly immoral (slavery for one). Creating a global economic and political structure.

---

Like how they created countries in Africa?

What's all that got to do with creating a common currency?

Ya know, as an old geezer, I actually remember a time when Canadian dimes were accepted as US dimes. Ten cents on the dollar. We "felt" we were being "generous" to our northern partners. But then it turned into to dimes and nickels ("nickel and diming one's dollars to death"), and it was strange to realize my US money was worth LESS than Canadian. Probably the first time I thought hard about 'legal tender'.

I can't imagine what this means to those who trusted the euro dollar, using a currency to unite nations....without also uniting their political structures. I guess it would be like the US and Canada having created a new North American Currency, while also keeping the US dollar and Canadian dollar, and also keeping our different political structures.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I can't imagine what this means to those who trusted the euro dollar, using a currency to unite nations....without also uniting their political structures. I guess it would be like the US and Canada having created a new North American Currency, while also keeping the US dollar and Canadian dollar, and also keeping our different political structures.

:confused:

---

No it definitely would not. The French franc etc no longer exists.

It'd be like the US, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and a dozen other nations deciding to give up their own currencies for one unified one.

Edit: Actually let's say the US formed a currency union with Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and 13 other nations but Canada decided to keep their own ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Like how they created countries in Africa?

---

Yeah, the British 'abolished slavery' by ending a slave trade it was difficult to profit in, then created systems of debt in African countries and forced ownership of natural resources that makes people slaves in all but name to this day.

And why would the stronger nations decide to incorporate (and prop up) the weaker ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Like how they created countries in Africa?

---

Do you think the alternative is better? Look at what's happening in Africa where the state has little authority (Somalia, Congo, South Sudan)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momo

Yeah, the British 'abolished slavery' by ending a slave trade it was difficult to profit in, then created systems of debt in African countries and forced ownership of natural resources that makes people slaves in all but name to this day.

---

You really shouldn't be making unsupported assertions as they were facts. The "system of debt" was created in the '70s by African rulers who borrowed a lot of money for white elephant projects. I fail to see how Britain was responsible for that.

The first point is even more wrong. The British outlawed the slave trade while it was still profitable, and it enforced a global ban on the slave trade at great expense to itself (including getting into numerous military exchanges to enforce it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You really shouldn't be making unsupported assertions as they were facts. The "system of debt" was created in the '70s by African rulers who borrowed a lot of money for white elephant projects. I fail to see how Britain was responsible for that.

---

Technically, the concept of banker's debt was introduced to Africa by Europeans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do you think the alternative is better? Look at what's happening in Africa where the state has little authority (Somalia, Congo, South Sudan)...

---

Yes, I think the alternative of not having states constructed out of parts of hostile nations while cutting the territories fof those nations over separate states might actually have spared Africa a lot of misery.

I must say I think it's kind of funny how German politicians are giving the Brits a taste of their own remedy; making remarks they know will upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yes, I think the alternative of not having states constructed out of parts of hostile nations while cutting the territories fof those nations over separate states might actually have spared Africa a lot of misery.

I must say I think it's kind of funny how German politicians are giving the Brits a taste of their own remedy; making remarks they know will upset.

---

You think non-ceasing tribal warfare would be preferable? Sorry, but the numbers simply don't play out. Tribal warfare kills far more people in Africa than do larger scale disputes (whether intra-state or interstate). The only real exception is the Congo Civil War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momo

Technically, the concept of banker's debt was introduced to Africa by Europeans.

---

By that you mean allowing people to take loans? What an awful practice that is. People should have to buy houses and expand businesses out of their own pocket! And God forbid farmers took a loan to improve their yield with the knowledge that the higher yield will help pay off the loan. Everyone should be a subsistence farmer instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You think non-ceasing tribal warfare would be preferable? Sorry, but the numbers simply don't play out. Tribal warfare kills far more people in Africa than do larger scale disputes (whether intra-state or interstate). The only real exception is the Congo Civil War.

---

Are you so naieve as to believe that some conflicts were not sparked by foreign manipulation with a goal of either supplying arms in the conflict or securing natural resources during or after the conflict?

Quote:

---

By that you mean allowing people to take loans? What an awful practice that is. People should have to buy houses and expand businesses out of their own pocket! And God forbid farmers took a loan to improve their yield with the knowledge that the higher yield will help pay off the loan. Everyone should be a subsistence farmer instead.

---

I understand that you're pointing out the fact that Africa's part of the modern global economy, but my original statement was 'created systems of debt' and that's what you wanted some explanation about how 'britain' (i.e. Europe) was responsible for that.

I think it goes too far to think of the Brits as so evil that they actually wanted the continent of Africa to fail, but they sure as hell didn't do anything towards giving their old colonies a fighting chance. And Loki, I think there would have been less wars of a lesser scale if there would not have been a re-division of Africa disregarding tribal loyalties. There is a host of African states that have no more right to exist than the Habsburg prison of nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momo

Are you so naieve as to believe that some conflicts were not sparked by foreign manipulation with a goal of either supplying arms in the conflict or securing natural resources during or after the conflict?

---

Are you so naive as to think that many conflicts were avoided by similar foreign manipulation?

Quote:

---

I understand that you're pointing out the fact that Africa's part of the modern global economy, but my original statement was 'created systems of debt' and that's what you wanted some explanation about how 'britain' (i.e. Europe) was responsible for that.

---

What does that even mean? Is this some South African socialist code word for something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

socialist code word

---

Loki... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I think it goes too far to think of the Brits as so evil that they actually wanted the continent of Africa to fail, but they sure as hell didn't do anything towards giving their old colonies a fighting chance. And Loki, I think there would have been less wars of a lesser scale if there would not have been a re-division of Africa disregarding tribal loyalties. There is a host of African states that have no more right to exist than the Habsburg prison of nations.

---

You're dodging my argument. Sure, some types of intra-state wars have increased due to the creation of modern African states, but many other types of intra-state wars have been avoided for that same reason. In the past, most men of fighting age would be involved in ritual warfare with tribal/village opponents or fight over local resources. Now such fighting is limited to organized militias, which make up a tiny percentage of the male population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Loki... :(

---

Since Momo supports the African National Congress, which is officially socialist and has a significant Marxist base, I really don't see why my assumption is unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Since Momo supports the African National Congress, which is officially socialist and has a significant Marxist base, I really don't see why my assumption is unreasonable.

---

I meant using 'socialist' as a swear word.

It was a descriptive term. Though the phrase Momo was using does seem to be from some propaganda leaflet.

It was also the only descriptive term that could be construed as the mocking one by polite society :p

I don't support the ANC.

:noob:

Just the inane rhetoric of their Marxist wing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're dodging my argument. Sure, some types of intra-state wars have increased due to the creation of modern African states, but many other types of intra-state wars have been avoided for that same reason. In the past, most men of fighting age would be involved in ritual warfare with tribal/village opponents or fight over local resources. Now such fighting is limited to organized militias, which make up a tiny percentage of the male population.

---

Almost funny, but there is no reason to assume that civil wars are any less bloody than inter-state wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Almost funny, but there is no reason to assume that civil wars are any less bloody than inter-state wars.

---

We don't have to assume anything: http://www.correlatesofwar.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're dodging my argument. Sure, some types of intra-state wars have increased due to the creation of modern African states, but many other types of intra-state wars have been avoided for that same reason. In the past, most men of fighting age would be involved in ritual warfare with tribal/village opponents or fight over local resources. Now such fighting is limited to organized militias, which make up a tiny percentage of the male population.

---

Don't worry, they make up for it with kidnapped boys and guns :o

Btw, does anyone know what the consequences were of abolitionism? In terms of economic consequences for the various nations, and wrt the balance of power in the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Btw, does anyone know what the consequences were of abolitionism? In terms of economic consequences for the various nations, and wrt the balance of power in the world?

---

Hard to imagine, it would depend on the ability of the EU to survive a collapse of the eurozone. I think most likely the EU will not survive such a collapse. Things will get ugly.

Sorry, I meant the abolition of slavery >_<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Btw, does anyone know what the consequences were of abolitionism? In terms of economic consequences for the various nations, and wrt the balance of power in the world?

---

Not large, as best I can recall. The slave trade was already losing steam as a result of changing attitudes and technologies. By the time the Royal Navy started actively interdicting it most of the major powers weren't much involved in it anymore and those that were stopped within a few years in the hail of treaties and acknowledgement of Britain's supreme naval power that came after the Napoleonic wars. I expect it might have had some significant effects confined to Africa but my African history is pretty spotty, particularly for the Atlantic side of the continent.

I don't think slave based labour has ever proven sustainable in economic terms. It also tends to be a significant brake on innovation.

Looks like Spain has just elected in a government that is promising a program of reforms and austerity.

"I don't think slave based labour has ever proven sustainable in economic terms. It also tends to be a significant brake on innovation. "

Rome made out quite well at least for a while perhaps despite slavery, but nevertheless innovation wise it was way ahead of all the other nation/tribes, at least for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuzzadelic

Not large, as best I can recall. The slave trade was already losing steam as a result of changing attitudes and technologies. By the time the Royal Navy started actively interdicting it most of the major powers weren't much involved in it anymore and those that were stopped within a few years in the hail of treaties and acknowledgement of Britain's supreme naval power that came after the Napoleonic wars. I expect it might have had some significant effects confined to Africa but my African history is pretty spotty, particularly for the Atlantic side of the continent.

---

Thanks for the reply P-Fuzz :up: but now I'm not sure what to make of Loki's assertion that they ended it while slavery was still profitable. I suppose there IS some way you can both be right :p