English as a universal language

[Xest]

[quote="Ovi"]As for the being robbed part, I certainly don't feel that way. I think our time had been served. We did our best for the countries, and tried to leave them in good shape. Some have prospered] I think in terms of places like Zimbabwe the problem is that it wasn't time for the empire to move on, there was no set time in history where the British empire needed to simply let go overall, different countries were ready to become independant at different times, there are places where the British should probably still be ruling to ensure transtition to a stable goverment instead of just pulling out when we did and leaving a horrific mess. Of course it's arguable that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but after we were the above applies imo.

I know I'm going rather offtopic here but I've always felt that different parts of the world seem to be almost stuck in different eras, a lot of the world, most notable Europe and the US/Japan settled down in terms of normalised ideologies from the World Wars as did many other places, whilst the wars did effect Africa and the Middle East it seemed to be to a lesser extent and the involvement even in those places seemed to be more with British colonies defending them as opposed to the native countrymen. The middle east right now feels like it's just waiting for it's own "World war" where the number of casualties are in the millions such that fighting after that becomes far more unthinkable and the region becomes far more stable.

The world does seem to be becoming more stable as a whole but I'm convinced that it takes a major atrocity to make a region stable. Whilst World War 1 and 2 were horrific many people fail to realise how much it benefitted the areas effected, after all a war between say England and Spain or France and Germany nowadays seems like little more than a joke, it's just not going to happen. The problem now is however that those countries that haven't stabilised along with the rest of us as we did in World War II are now in a much more globalised world, so their smaller regional conflicts are pouring over into the lives of countries that have stabilised ala 9/11 - this is somewhat worrying as it prolongs stabilization in the areas where the conflicts are exported from (current Iraq invasion) and were a mass export of conflict to happen, i.e. a nuclear device exported from Iran to the US via terrorists and detonated in New York/LA then we could see severe world destabilization again, it's a shame therefore we can't isolate regions yet to acheive stability from those who have acheived stability to prevent that possibility.

It's sad but it really does take a tragedy for people to wake up, just as we wont solve global warming until people really start becoming inconvenienced or people start dying in the hundreds of thousands to global warming induced natural disasters (It's a shame Katrina wasn't enough of a wake up call) we wont likely see peace in the middle east until hell really breaks loose. The odd suicide bombing here and there doesn't cut it, Israel's bombardment is a bit more of a wakeup call but until Syria/Iran end up in a major war, rather than their constant provoking of political situations ala Hezbollah now or the muslim cartoon incident earlier this year then we'll see the constant tit for tat fighting we've been seeing for years in the region. Ironically also with regards to Iraq, it's likely not the invasion of Iraq and the installation of a puppet goverment by the US that'll stabilise Iraq but the civil war that is brewing there, as tragic as the death toll that'll ensue is it'll likely eventually end up in a much more stable region (See former Yugoslavia). I'm not going to pretend that what I've said here is some kind of definitive analysis of regional stabilisation and what's needed to acheive it, things can go the other way (Somalia) where things just look hopeless but history has generally proven that massive scale tragic wars do eventually lead to stabilisation and whilst the death toll of the wars are high they can often lead to peace - and lower death tolls in the long run so often seem to be a necessary evil.

[Takitothemacs]

<impersonating Michael Caine>

Don't throw those bloody spears at me!

<ooc>
anyway interesting topic covering all sorts of dichotomies, parallels and even some pretty far left and far right opinions thus far... all in fairly good spirits... keep it up folks... keeping me from getting too bored at work.

[HappyG]

I think countries need to take responsibility for themselves. It is so easy to blame the British empire for what has gone wrong in countries. However, most of the problem is actions taken by local leaders, i.e. the ones who over-threw the British or who over-threw the ones who over-threw the British.

I think we need to draw a significant line betweeen the nation and a country. Nations should take responsibility for themselves, but in a case of Africa they simply cant, because they are either devided between two or more countries or they are a minority in their country. It's not that British (or any other European empire for that case) had gone wrong in those countries, they made up wrong countries. IMO every nation should have a right for selfdetermination, unfortunetly that is not the case even for some of the most stable countries in the world, not to mention Africa. I believe only ethnic clean or socialy rich countries can achieve long term stability.

Ironically also with regards to Iraq, it's likely not the invasion of Iraq and the installation of a puppet goverment by the US that'll stabilise Iraq but the civil war that is brewing there, as tragic as the death toll that'll ensue is it'll likely eventually end up in a much more stable region (See former Yugoslavia).

Well ex-Yugoslavian republics with little or no ethnic minorities are indeed stable, while Bosnia is administratively divided into two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. Many institutions are still under UN supervision. Part of your thinking is true, war and ethnic cleansing that occured in it made the borders in Croatia and Bosnia much clearer than they were before the war, which ironicly will most likely help the stabilisation in the future.
You have 3 ethnic groups in Iraq, Sunis, Siits and Kurds. In order to stabilise the region you would most likely give Kurds the right to form their Kurdistan. Unfortunetly Turkey, good US ally has occupied a good portion of land where ethnic Kurds are living and will never accept a formation of Kurdistan... And so the colonialism continues

[Xest]

I might be wrong but if I recall correctly there was some condition involving the Turks giving way to the Kurds (at least to some extent) as well as recognising cyprus as a Greek (or was it independant?) island or whatever if they're to join the EU so there is some hope

Not that I personally think Turkey should EVER be allowed in the EU but still, unfortunately it's not up to me

[Ovi]

It is that popular because there was a time not so long ago when English was the language to be used in the 'official' buisness of India and a few other colonies. Its dominance is as a result of slaughter and conquest. Thats my point. English is dominant as a second language not through the choice of the rest of the world. Even the English people I am close to admit that with some embarrassment. So when I see these arguments I don't see logic I see history and what happened with colonisation - thats once more my main objection.

...

Just re-read this thread, yes I am bored at work, and realised I hadn't replied to this.

I think people dwell too much on history. Whilst we need to record it and try to learn from it's mistakes we also need to be able to differentiate between the then and the now.

Whatever you think about why English became so widely used, the fact is that now it is widely used, and it does make sense for it to become the defacto language of global communication. Unless of course you want to learn Chinese

[HappyG]

[quote="Xest"]I might be wrong but if I recall correctly there was some condition involving the Turks giving way to the Kurds (at least to some extent) as well as recognising cyprus as a Greek (or was it independant?) island or whatever if they're to join the EU so there is some hope ]

Ye well, funny thing is, that Kurdish problem is not mentioned much when EU politicians talk about Turkey, and will not be the decisive one when Turkey will be accepted / rejected in the EU. EU demands the recognition of Cyprus for those half a million greeks that live there, and keep quiet about 15 million turkish Kurds at the same time. And than we bitch about US foreign politics

[Lieva]

Just re-read this thread, yes I am bored at work, and realised I hadn't replied to this.

no one ever replies to me

<packs up belongings in a little hankerchief, ties it to a stick and heads into the sunset>

[Ovi]

no one ever replies to me

<packs up belongings in a little hankerchief, ties it to a stick and heads into the sunset>

You should re-read the thread too, I replied to a couple of your posts

[Lairiodd]

i.e. a nuclear device exported from Iran to the US via terrorists and detonated in New York/LA then we could see severe world destabilization again,

The response would be that the US would turn the Middle East into glass. The survivors would never try something like that again and thus the Middle East would have its "world war" effect.

Destabilisation would only happen if other nuclear powers got involved. However, they would likely accept that nothing they say will stop the US from using nukes and thus they aren't going to bluff just to have their bluff called.

However, remember for something like that to happen, a government has to actually give a nuke to a terrorist. Governments in that region may seem (and act) crazy, but they are not likely actually that crazy. They know that keeping their nukes on a leash is necessary for their survival.

It's sad but it really does take a tragedy for people to wake up, just as we wont solve global warming until people really start becoming inconvenienced or people start dying in the hundreds of thousands to global warming induced natural disasters (It's a shame Katrina wasn't enough of a wake up call)

Even if the worst of the worst predictions, i.e. the ones from the 1990's which have not matched the recorded rise were true, it isn't a major problem. The real problem is that people think the worlds climate has even been stable, which it hasn't.

A sea level rise of a few metres over a century is no problem. Cities are continuously rebuilt anyway, so even lowlying regions shouldn't have to much problems.

we wont likely see peace in the middle east until hell really breaks loose. The odd suicide bombing here and there doesn't cut it, Israel's bombardment is a bit more of a wakeup call but until Syria/Iran end up in a major war, rather than their constant provoking of political situations ala Hezbollah now or the muslim cartoon incident earlier this year then we'll see the constant tit for tat fighting we've been seeing for years in the region.

Right, they should have targetted Syria rather than lebanon. However, they ofc have the right to defend themselves.

[Quinlan]

It's sad but it really does take a tragedy for people to wake up, just as we wont solve global warming until people really start becoming inconvenienced or people start dying in the hundreds of thousands to global warming induced natural disasters (It's a shame Katrina wasn't enough of a wake up call)

A yet another person who is convinced by the media's need for fear and the left 'enviromental terrorists' that there is such a thing as global warming. It does not exist and the evidence for it is alot more extensife then the evidence supporting the global warming theory.

Seeing your example: It is funny that today the US Meteoroligy (spelling) lowered it's expectation from 9 hurricanes to 7 for this hurricane season. Furthmore katherina was only a big disaster because population has increased and the infrastructure was not up to date. Hence more destruction. FYI in 1936 there was a cat 4 hurricane who was alot more destructive. Katrina was only a cat 3