Boots on the Ground

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2015, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You said you experienced the history of the U.S. and other western involvement in the region that led to the animosity against us. In order to experience that history you would have had to have been there for it. That's over a century of western meddling before you were there.

..or I could have been there and witnessed first hand the ideology that drives them. I can tell you there have been more changes in the last 10-11 years in that country than there was in the century prior. But thanks for telling me what the requirement is.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2015, 01:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..or I could have been there and witnessed first hand the ideology that drives them. I can tell you there have been more changes in the last 10-11 years in that country than there was in the century prior. But thanks for telling me what the requirement is.

That's still not experiencing the history of the region that we are discussing.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2015, 01:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's still not experiencing the history of the region that we are discussing.

If you say so. Keep reading those articles.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2015, 01:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you say so. Keep reading those articles.

Hey, they teach you more about the history of the past century of the region than being there in the past decade. Unless of course you're the scholarly type and looking at the region with an historical and/or anthropological mindset while there.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2015, 01:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hey, they teach you more about the history of the past century of the region than being there in the past decade. Unless of course you're the scholarly type and looking at the region with an historical and/or anthropological mindset while there.

No doubt reading an article would give you a greater understanding of the effects of western influence in the region over the last 100 years (prior to 2004) than actually being there and seeing that there was virtually no western influence in that country. Then you have the opportunity to see how much has changed in the last century when we truly have a presence and influence in that country.

If you think you can learn more about a country’s history by reading about it than you can living in its culture and talking to its elders for a decade, then I suggest you get out more.

I am not sure why you took exception with the post unless you just want to debate the definition of the word “experienced”. If that is the case; then you have achieved the pinnacle of 95% of PR retorts and many here are no doubt proud of your tactic.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2015, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt reading an article would give you a greater understanding of the effects of western influence in the region over the last 100 years (prior to 2004) than actually being there and seeing that there was virtually no western influence in that country. Then you have the opportunity to see how much has changed in the last century when we truly have a presence and influence in that country.

If you think you can learn more about a country’s history by reading about it than you can living in its culture and talking to its elders for a decade, then I suggest you get out more.

Well, if you did all of that then based upon your responses in other parts of this thread I would say you can learn more from reading about it given that you seemed to ignore all of the things that western influence did to the region that has led to the events in recent history in earlier posts.

That being said, I am referring to the history itself. Also, not sure what area(s) you may have spent time in, but considering this is a very large region the effects of western influence in the region in current day are different depending on the particular area in the region. I spend a lot of time discussing things like this with some of the expatriated folks from the region that are here. History and anthropology are favorite topics of mine and having made friends with some fellow accountants in the area that immigrated from Pakistan I have been able to find a number of people that like to discuss it. Folks from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Palestine have been very welcoming and our discussions have led to open house events at the local mosque where they teach people about their culture, including a program for some of the grade school children here. It's been a lot of fun.

(05-20-2015, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am not sure why you took exception with the post unless you just want to debate the definition of the word “experienced”. If that is the case; then you have achieved the pinnacle of 95% of PR retorts and many here are no doubt proud of your tactic.

I never understood why people look down on a semantic argument. The definition of words is an important thing in communication. So why so dismissive of that?

And I am not proud of debates like this. It's not like it takes great effort of the mind or changes the world in any way.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2015, 02:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I never understood why people look down on a semantic argument. The definition of words is an important thing in communication. So why so dismissive of that?

Have you ever heard the saying "You are missing the forest because of the trees"?

Many focus on how something is said rather that what is said. I've often found it to be quite petty; especially on a message board. Others find it to be of considerable importance.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2015, 02:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Have you ever heard the saying "You are missing the forest because of the trees"?

Many focus on how something is said rather that what is said. I've often found it to be quite petty; especially on a message board. Others find it to be of considerable importance.

There are times when I can see that happening with a semantic argument, however there are plenty of times when the semantic argument happens because what was said just doesn't jive. The wrong word, or combination of words, can change entirely what is inferred from the post. Especially since you're unable to use tone to help ascertain the meaning.

[GMDino]

(05-20-2015, 01:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..or I could have been there and witnessed first hand the ideology that drives them. I can tell you there have been more changes in the last 10-11 years in that country than there was in the century prior. But thanks for telling me what the requirement is.

That doesn't even make sense.

The only thing that's gone on in the last decade is the US bombing them instead of someone else.

Over the previous century plus they've had multiple wars, power struggles, coups...and you think more changed in the last decade?

Being there give you unique insight into what it is like now...but to ignore everything before that because you think seeing it now is better than reading about what it was like before you got there is inane.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2015, 02:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are times when I can see that happening with a semantic argument, however there are plenty of times when the semantic argument happens because what was said just doesn't jive. The wrong word, or combination of words, can change entirely what is inferred from the post. Especially since you're unable to use tone to help ascertain the meaning.

Got it. So when I said "experienced" you were really unsure if I had lived there for the past 100 years or not and that is why you asked for clarification?

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2015, 02:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Got it. So when I said "experienced" you were really unsure if I had lived there for the past 100 years or not and that is why you asked for clarification?

No. When you said you had experienced the history I knew that was an erroneous statement and was hoping to find out what you had actually meant.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2015, 02:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't even make sense.

The only thing that's gone on in the last decade is the US bombing them instead of someone else.

Over the previous century plus they've had multiple wars, power struggles, coups...and you think more changed in the last decade?

Being there give you unique insight into what it is like now...but to ignore everything before that because you think seeing it now is better than reading about what it was like before you got there is inane.

I see you have been busy reading (most likely biased) articles. I have seen election reform and advancement of women's rights more in the last decade than had taken place in the last half-millennium. I have seen school destroyed by the Taliban becuase they wanted anyone to learn, being rebuilt and attended. I have seen wells constructed in places that had never had acces to water in there history.

I have seen countless other progresses. You feel free to go with the only thing that has changed in that we are bombing them more.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2015, 02:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. When you said you had experienced the history I knew that was an erroneous statement and was hoping to find out what you had actually meant.

Well, now you know. My apologies.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2015, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, now you know. My apologies.

It's all good. My apologies as well because I think it might've sounded more hostile. I know snark can be taken different ways by different people, and while my snark is often intended to be more on the humorous side, some find it aggressive.

[GMDino]

(05-20-2015, 03:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see you have been busy reading (most likely biased) articles. I have seen election reform and advancement of women's rights more in the last decade than had taken place in the last half-millennium. I have seen school destroyed by the Taliban becuase they wanted anyone to learn, being rebuilt and attended. I have seen wells constructed in places that had never had acces to water in there history.

I have seen countless other progresses. You feel free to go with the only thing that has changed in that we are bombing them more.

Yes, multiple wars, changes in leadership and coups...nothing compared to the last ten years with women's rights and voting.

Typical.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2015, 03:41 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Yes, multiple wars, changes in leadership and coups...nothing compared to the last ten years with women's rights and voting.

Typical.

My bad. I though you said:

(05-20-2015, 03:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't even make sense.

The only thing that's gone on in the last decade is the US bombing them instead of someone else.

[GMDino]

(05-20-2015, 06:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My bad. I though you said:

No, your bad was assuming your experience in the last ten years trumped everything for the 100 years before that. Not that that is any real surprise.

[BmorePat87]

No Western influences in the country? Its borders are the result of losing wars against imperialist Western nations that competed to control the region and its resources. It's the reason most middle eastern countries borders ignore historical and tribal borders and lump together opposing religions and ethnic groups

[BmorePat87]

(05-20-2015, 10:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, your bad was assuming your experience in the last ten years trumped everything for the 100 years before that.  Not that that is any real surprise.

I like how documented history is being called "biased articles".

[StLucieBengal]

(05-21-2015, 06:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No Western influences in the country? Its borders are the result of losing wars against imperialist Western nations that competed to control the region and its resources. It's the reason most middle eastern countries borders ignore historical and tribal borders and lump together opposing religions and ethnic groups

Yeah France and the Brits did that to keep getting resources .... Good ole Sykes-Picot