[Opinion] The Abnormal Demand to ‘Behave Like a Normal Nation’

[Ihavewaffles]

So more misinformation.. Russia never bothered with conquering scandinavia? Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War never happened? And they simply folded? now, here is an appropriate location to add the "lolz"

And again, your feelings aren't really relevant. It was an empire by any commonly used definition of empire, it is referred to as swedish empire at the time and by historians up until now.

Can you give me any other reason why it has not been an empire apart from your feelings?

Also, i'm not your dude, pal.

Hahaha...attacking finland doesn't mean conquering scandinavia, like I said great powers don't have to do that. Sweden didn't help finland.
Hitler taking denmark n rest just folded n accepted new reality.
Swe gave up on norway when british navy showed up.
There's no need to follow through with a scandinavian conquest, just bark menacing n no more than a good hiding n rest fall in line...

U are under the delusion that history is a science n a lot of it isn't up to interpretation, bias, expediency simply accept version of other countries unless u have conflicting opposing views.
I told u that every country at one point of time has conquered some neighbors territory, so basically all countries can be interpreted as an 'empire' which is really bias stretching the truth.

Ur historians can all agree 1+1=3, doesn't make it so.

Calling yourself "- the Great" cuz Alexander the Great did so cuz ur no-name country conquered some no-name tribe doesn't make u great, u could technically call yourself that, just like u can be the great if u step on an ant hill.

I mentioned Russia before, well what if russia only consisted of north asia n nothing of europe? Would that be an empire? No, it would be Canada.

And Canada isn't an empire anymore than Australia is, beating down some stone-age aboriginals doesn't count as some great feat.

If every conqueror of every pipsqueak country is a "- the Great", then I guess Alexander, Napoleon etc are not better?

Empire, the Great, are words meant for those who stand way above the rest. You want a participation trophy? Tough luck, no can do.

Sparsely inhabited finland (mini siberia), one tiny baltic state, one tiny german city-state out of a 10000? Is not something u should use n say ur int same club as roman empire, british empire, russian empire, napoleon french empire etc etc

This is disingenuous! Countries n historians are to prone to romanticize history, these people are sub-par to science.

Historians, u need to take them with a grain of salt..

Next someone will claim Denmark is an empire cuz it has Greenland..
This is from ur useless link that u use as an argument..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire
An empire is a sovereign state functioning as an aggregate of nations or people that are ruled over by an emperor or another kind of monarch. The territory and population of an empire is commonly of greater extent than the one of a kingdom.[1]

So, if Lichtenstein would conquer Andorra? Then technically we could talk about "The Liechtensteinian Empire"

This conversation has gone on long enough and nobody is even talking about original topic..

[announced]

Let me illustrate the stupidity of this statement do you think the US would still be feeling the fallout if we didn't participate in WW2 and the Nazis won? How about if we never split from the British? I mean for fuck sake even in your own life one decision can change everything for you and your grand kids it's worse for nations.

Apples to oranges. Iran wasn't trying to take over the entire world, and Germany was. I do agree that we should just pull out of the middle east. Let the middle eastern nations handle their own squabbles as an internal deal.

Whether it gives license or not isn't really the point - the origins of the disputes and hatreds between the nations are relevant to developing a narrative history that helps one understand why there isn't a meaningful peace in sight. This is easier to see when we look at historic examples that we aren't personally invested in. Were various gothic tribes justified in repeatedly sacking Roman cities? That hardly even seems like a useful question to ask - the reality created by centuries of warfare was that the moment the defenses of Rome slipped, those cities were going to get sacked. Thinking about the geopolitics behind US-Iran relations with an eye towards how we can expect nations to behave makes the whole thing make a lot more sense than just asking "what would a reasonable person do here?".

- - - Updated - - -


Likewise, let's be clear - Iran hasn't behaved as some helpless, innocent bystander that's just continuously being beaten down by the United States. The history of mutual antagonism has lasted for the entirety of the existence of the modern state of Iran. Expecting normalization of relations is about as expecting the ancient Macedonians to have settled on getting together with the Persians for a nice cuppa. These are natural geopolitical rivals. I'm fine with placing more blame on Western nations (looking particularly at the USA and UK) for how they treated the Middle East prior to Iran returning to having any meaningful power, but we really need to avoid thinking of this like it's two guys who could just make up and play nice.

Iran has always been aggressive. Over the last 3 years Iran and its proxies have attacked numerous ships in the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi oil facilities, an American drone and an American embassy, among other targets. All of this occurred while the Trump administration did little or nothing in response.

Honestly I wouldn't mind pulling out of the middle east, since there isn't anything to gain by being there. The most we should do is patrol the Strait of Hormuz so no one attacks anymore of our allies ships.

[Xarkan]

Swe gave up on norway when british navy showed up.

Surrendering Norway after a gunboat war sounds like something Denmark might do

[Draco-Onis]

Apples to oranges. Iran wasn't trying to take over the entire world, and Germany was. I do agree that we should just pull out of the middle east. Let the middle eastern nations handle their own squabbles as an internal deal.

Splitting with the British empire is taking over the entire world? it's apples to apples there are so many other examples such as the assassination of Duke Ferdinand, the French revolution, the decision to create the country of Israel etc etc. You are just reaching for a lifeboat as for pulling out of the ME it's too late we've killed millions of people and made too many enemies that ship sailed 80 years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

Iran has always been aggressive. Over the last 3 years Iran and its proxies have attacked numerous ships in the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi oil facilities, an American drone and an American embassy, among other targets. All of this occurred while the Trump administration did little or nothing in response.

Honestly I wouldn't mind pulling out of the middle east, since there isn't anything to gain by being there. The most we should do is patrol the Strait of Hormuz so no one attacks anymore of our allies ships.

You forget the part where Iran's aggression started when Trump violated and pulled out of the nuclear deal and imposed sanction even punishing allies from saving it. You are contradicting yourself whatever happened to America first we don't care about allies yet you are talking about attacks on the Saudis. I mean of all our "allies" Mohammed bonesaw terrorist supporting Saudis are the least of our concerns.

[pfbe]

I wouldn't want to live in the kind of cold Norway has. Then again, I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy like Iran's either. Can't they both be more like normal nations, like... is there a place on Earth that is just right in both weather, geography, economy and people? if there is, then more like that place.

And, tee bee queue age, I do wish that this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...shment_in_Iran

did look a little more like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...ment_in_Norway

baby steps.

[Fuiking]

Hahaha...attacking finland doesn't mean conquering scandinavia, like I said great powers don't have to do that. Sweden didn't help finland.
Hitler taking denmark n rest just folded n accepted new reality.
Swe gave up on norway when british navy showed up.
There's no need to follow through with a scandinavian conquest, just bark menacing n no more than a good hiding n rest fall in line...

U are under the delusion that history is a science n a lot of it isn't up to interpretation, bias, expediency simply accept version of other countries unless u have conflicting opposing views.
I told u that every country at one point of time has conquered some neighbors territory, so basically all countries can be interpreted as an 'empire' which is really bias stretching the truth.

Ur historians can all agree 1+1=3, doesn't make it so.

Calling yourself "- the Great" cuz Alexander the Great did so cuz ur no-name country conquered some no-name tribe doesn't make u great, u could technically call yourself that, just like u can be the great if u step on an ant hill.

I mentioned Russia before, well what if russia only consisted of north asia n nothing of europe? Would that be an empire? No, it would be Canada.

And Canada isn't an empire anymore than Australia is, beating down some stone-age aboriginals doesn't count as some great feat.

If every conqueror of every pipsqueak country is a "- the Great", then I guess Alexander, Napoleon etc are not better?

Empire, the Great, are words meant for those who stand way above the rest. You want a participation trophy? Tough luck, no can do.

Sparsely inhabited finland (mini siberia), one tiny baltic state, one tiny german city-state out of a 10000? Is not something u should use n say ur int same club as roman empire, british empire, russian empire, napoleon french empire etc etc

This is disingenuous! Countries n historians are to prone to romanticize history, these people are sub-par to science.

Historians, u need to take them with a grain of salt..

Next someone will claim Denmark is an empire cuz it has Greenland..
This is from ur useless link that u use as an argument..


So, if Lichtenstein would conquer Andorra? Then technically we could talk about "The Liechtensteinian Empire"

This conversation has gone on long enough and nobody is even talking about original topic..

Oh no, son, your not getting away this easily. Technically an Empire is more or less a way to keep overlordship over vast pieces of land. An emperor/High King can have lower ranked kings be his vassals.

[Halicia]

The US is in the middle east for 2 reasons:
1) Business interests.
2) To fix their Iraq fuck up.

Being the strongest country in the world comes with responsibilities. The US are the world Police to keep the peace.

A country only engages with another country to serve their own interests. Business or otherwise. Your second point is irrelevant once you follow that line of thought. Granted, Trump's largely !@#$ed that up, but then again, noone's ever accused Trump of serving American interests.

No matter what some random guy on the internet says, the US is not the world police, and its not their responsibility. The "world police" falls under the purview of the UN...

[Halicia]

to fix a fuck up is not about morality. it's about keeping your allies happy. to keep buying oil at affordable prices.

You're gonna have to be more specific about which !@#$ up in the last century you're complaining about, here.

By and large, the !@#$ up the US repeats that upsets allies and puts oil prices in flux is interfering in nations and playing kingmaker in their proxy wars.