Stop trying to bait me, I ain't going to bite.


Recap of this thread:

T0ribush: "Those people should feel lucky a super power has come from the land of opportunity to save them from the constant life in the dark ages."

deprav: "Most of those countries are in a shit situation because occidental empires/countries fucked them up for their own profit in the first place. Africa and Middle-East have been divided and exploited for a lonnnng time."

Pig: "Africa and the Middle-East have been divided and exploited by themselves for a lonnnng time. Putting the blame on the west is a new meme, it's not historically accurate."

Ele: "Where is your evidence? I already posted a link to a whole fucking book about something irrelevant to what you are discussing. If someone says the west did it then that proves the west did it. If you believe X thing that you didn't say you believe, then prove it."

Pig: "Is this bait?"

Ele: "<insert flaming>, <changes goalposts from "lonnnng time ago" to "this century">"

Pig: "I have no interest in being baited into a nonsense argument."

Ele: "I'll have your Discussion access removed if you're going to keep acting like this." (DIRECT QUOTE, HE LITERALLY SAID THIS)

<meanwhile Deprav and Pig continue discussing the topic of "Africa and Middle-East have been divided and exploited for a lonnnng time.">

Do you see the problem here Ele? Do you see the problem? Can you please just stop because seriously what the hell are you doing. Baiting and cherry picking citation requirements and posting strawmen and flaming, then threatening to power abuse if someone doesn't take the bait, do you see the problem yet?!

It's good that you've taken to time to explain your perspective, since now we go can go through it and point out where you're wrong.


You said that it's not historically accurate to blame the West for exploiting the Middle East. The book documents several examples of the West doing just that. So, it's relevant. If you want to argue that the things recorded in the book never happened (e.g. the whole mess with Iran and the Shah), then I don't know how to help you there. Take some history classes, I guess.



You clearly believe the West isn't to blame for the instability in the Middle East today, or else you wouldn't have said that blaming the West is not historically accurate. I asked you to explain why it's not historically accurate. Your responded with...


You refused to elaborate. So, I told you I was serious, and again asked you to explain your position. You responded with..


After I already told you I was serious and asked you again to explain your position.

How uncooperative and unreasonable is that? Very uncooperative and unreasonable. If you're just here to troll, you can turn around and walk your backside out the door. If you're here to participate in a discussion like a normal human being and you can muster enough respect for people so as to take them seriously, then you can stay. Up to you.

Why would I need to argue that?

It's irrelevant in the first place, could you please stop bringing it up? Again, it's totally irrelevant to the argument about what happened a "lonnnng time" ago.

No need to flame and try to force the conversation to change topics.



Again, that is totally irrelevant since we are talking about "Most of those countries are in a shit situation because occidental empires/countries fucked them up for their own profit in the first place. Africa and Middle-East have been divided and exploited for a lonnnng time." We aren't talking about the past 60 years.

Of course I asked if it's bait because you are continuously trying to change the subject and built an incredibly stable and not at all fragile strawman. What else am I supposed to think that is?


That's part of what I said, the other part of what I replied was "if you really are [serious], go and read the chain of replies again and realise your mistake."

Which again you refuse to do (surprise surprise) and continue to try and bait me. No we are not talking about recent history, I don't care if one time you read a book and are itching to discuss it, I'm not interested. I told you straight up I didn't want to take part in this argument but you continue to press the issue and threaten and flame.


Good job winning an argument that I explicitly refused to participate in.

Now I'm going to wait for Deprav to reply so we can get back on topic.

Yes we are, you said Western exploitation isn't historically accurate. History includes the past century. If you never intended to sweep the past century under the rug like you're saying now, then you never should have said that it's historically inaccurate in the first place. I don't care if, in your argument with deprav, you're not talking about recent history. My argument, from the beginning, has always been directed against your statement that it's historically inaccurate, and the basis of that argument is recent history.

No, stop taking things out of context.

The exact quotes were:


To paraphrase:
"Africa and Middle-East are in the shit because they were fucked by the west a long time ago"
"No, putting the blame on the west is not accurate"
This is what we are talking about - Africa and the Middle-East a long time ago.

Short list of things we are NOT talking about:
1. The past 60 years (this is not a long time ago)
2. All of time (we are talking about a long time ago, since we both explicitly stated that we were)
3. All of history (we are talking about Africa and the Middle-East a long time ago)

If you wanted to make an on topic reply you should have made it about Africa and the Middle-East a long time ago. Not about African and the Middle-East in recent history, not about Brazil a long time ago, not about Brazil in recent history, no no, we were talking about Africa and the Middle-East a long time ago.

You see how this works? Nothing was "swept under the rug", we just weren't talking about it. Are you going to complain that we are neglecting the dodo? Ah that majestic bird that was wiped out, how can the plight of the dodo be ignored?!?! GEE I WONDER HOW IT COULD BE, MAYBE BECAUSE WE ARE BUSY TALKING ABOUT AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE-EAST A LONG TIME AGO AND THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT DODOS.

Do you finally see what I am getting at Ele? We are not talking about that, you are talking about that, I am not, Deprav was not, we were not, you are, but we aren't. You butted into a conversation to say something COMPLETELY irrelevant, and then continued to make absurd posts.

Do you finally get it? Please say you get it, please Ele, because this is honestly just ridiculous. I honestly cannot be any clearer than this, I think I have spelled out the problem in agonizing detail, we were talking about X, you are talking about Y, I am not interested in discussing Y right now, I want to discuss X. Please finally understand, please.

Yes, now that you've engaged with me. Thank-you. This wouldn't have been some 10 post exchange if you weren't so (rudely) uncooperative about it in the first place.

Could have also been avoided by you reading what you were replying to instead of blindly disagreeing with everything I say just so you have an excuse to flame...

I even think you missinterpreted what I said in the first place Pig. Time is all very relative, when I said "for a lonnnng time" it was directed to Toribush's post which felt like he was saying the intervention of the occident was very recent and didn't have any prior history, like the past 100 years. Just like Divine who seems to think everything started 14 years ago with 9/11.
Now, not saying what happened before that past century didn't exist and wars never happened inbefore the west occupied the area, I'm saying it has a very little to no impact on the present situation.

Also, I'm too lazy to continue the point by point stuff, we're getting lost in details who popped up from a misunderstanding ("lonnnng time"). So, for you pig, I'll start fresh :

The world is not all black & white, the western intervention in the middle-east didn't come from good intentions toward those countries but for economical/financial reasons for the occupying western countries : ressources, and strategical occupation to open the way toward more ressources. Because ressources are not infinite, and that area holds the largest amount of natural ressources as of today ; which means whoever controls it makes a shitload of profit and has a comfortable control over the fossil-fuel dependent economy.

Now, there are two ways to keep an advantageous control over ressources that do not belong to you in the first place : keeping the locals in chaos and misery so you can help yourself on their ressources for very little costs and have very little questions asked from the international community, or put someone/something you can control/influence at the head of the country holding the ressources you desire, more expensive since there will be an intermediary inbetween the oil and the occupant, that's why it's generally judicious to let the country under a dictatorship, you can do business directly with the power in place, except when he decides he wants to change the deal (Iraq, Sadam Hussein)
The countries falling in the 2nd category has had some comfortable help and stability offered by the occupying country(ies) indeed, but that doesn't mean what western countries are doing is morally acceptable.
The ones falling in the first category aren't that lucky, obviously.
There are some other ones who resist and don't want the US or allies to come and take a hold of their shit (like Iran, for the "peaceful" part), and some others who've been forged in hatered, violence and fanatism, like ISIS and other jihadists groups, because war and death generally brings a strong desire for retaliation/revenge and more war and death.
And you have the ultraliberal business countries like Qatar or Saudi Arabia in which oil magnates don't know what the fuck to do with their buttload of money, with some of them ending up financing -directly or undirectly- insurgents fighting the western occupation in the neighbouring areas, creating more conflicts in the region.

All the tension in the area revolves directly and undirectly around oil/ressources, business, western occupation, and its ultra-violent response/opposition. I don't think that will ever stop until there's no oil to pump anymore, and the oil dependent economy is the West's baby. So yes, I don't think that's far fetched to say western countries plays a pretty big part in the present situation of those regions.

That's a very simplified summary, the matter being much more complicated and involving many insurgent groups and many different interests from each country. It's not just "good guys vs terrorism" as Divine seems to think, and it's not just "lets loot ressources". It's a mix inbetween many factors, and strongly involving the occident's economical interests.

America is the hegemony of the world, with the largest military and is in general by far the strongest country in the world. Countries look to America when things go bad, since they ensure peace around the world.

People often criticize America for spending so much on defense, and that it should be used for other reasons. These people fail to realize that America is the one thing enforcing the peace around the world.

Because of this, America has the right to intervene in global issues. It's really their job.

ô boï... I don't think I can...

Did you actually read at least one post from the thread before you started ..... (intense fight against myself to refrain condescending sarcasm) .... posting ?

If not, I just invite you to do so. That will prevent a lot of people to repeat things that have been said many times already.

But for a starter, USA's job and primary concern is to protect USA's interests, mainly economical, and not to "keep peace around the world" as you claim. And even the statement I just made is pretty naïve ; the immediat interests of banks, multinationals, and the few people financing politics and parties sadly come first too often, before the long term interests of the country and its inhabitants.