US bases in Colombia, and how it has nothing to do with Lula (so he should stay out of it)

You know, after the Napoleonic Wars there was an age of metternich that ushered in a 100 years of peace.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You know, after the Napoleonic Wars there was an age of metternich that ushered in a 100 years of peace.

you know, back then they didn't have the UN, or anyone who was willing to talk instead of starting wars.

The UN has not prevented any of the battles of the Cold War.

Wars remain a possibility in the future.

There is no guarantee, but with work the peace of the world can continue for a long time.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You know, after the Napoleonic Wars there was an age of metternich that ushered in a 100 years of peace.

This is an interesting but ahistorical claim you make here. European history is not your thing perhaps.

There was war in Greece between 1821 and 1829 that killed almost 200,000 people. There was the Russo–Turkish War of 1828–1829. War in Crete 1866–1869. The Caucasian War of 1817–1864 killed at least 300,000. Wars in Bosnia 1831–1836, 1836–1837, and 1841. War in Montenegro 1852–1853. We have the eighth Russo-Turkish war from 1853 to 1856. 300,000 were killed in the Crimean War (1854–1856) when the United Kingdom and France joined the war on the side of the Ottoman Empire. There followed a war in Montenegro in 1858–1859. War, again, in Montenegro, Bosnia and Serbia in 1862. Then there was war in Bulgaria in 1876. And the ninth and final Russo–Turkish war started in 1877. And last but not least war between Prussia and France 1870–1871 that saw at least 190,000 dead.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
I don't expect you to understand the implications of Venezuela's nostalgia for "Gran Colombia." If her were a normal, intelligent leader, it would not have the same implications.

You do realise that this is called paranoia?

Your assumption that X means M is based upon Y not being T and there's absolutely no reason or proof that X = Y.

Originally posted by FMF
And last but not least war between Prussia and France 1870–1871 that saw at least 190,000 dead.

And this last war, where Germany was eventually returned Alsace-Lorraine, is one of the main reasons Germany protected her Western flank during WWI. The fear of France pincering it, whilst it was helping out Austro-Hungary.

Originally posted by FMF
This is an interesting but ahistorical claim you make here. European history is not your thing perhaps.

There was war in Greece between 1821 and 1829 that killed almost 200,000 people. There was the Russo–Turkish War of 1828–1829. War in Crete 1866–1869. The Caucasian War of 1817–1864 killed at least 300,000. Wars in Bosnia 1831–1836, 1836–1837, and 1841. War ...[text shortened]... And last but not least war between Prussia and France 1870–1871 that saw at least 190,000 dead.

And there were battles during the pax romana, what's your point?
The fact that the devastation of the Napoleonic Wars and the World Wars were noticeably absent from Europe for a hundred years remains a tribute to Metternich's diplomatic brilliance... not to any world body.

Originally posted by shavixmir
You do realise that this is called paranoia?

Your assumption that X means M is based upon Y not being T and there's absolutely no reason or proof that X = Y.

If you don't take it into context, such as Chavez's rhetoric, increasing weapons purchases, and troop movements towards the Columbian border along with closing diplomatic relations and preparing the populace for bad relations with Columbia, etc, etc ... then it would not be surprising that you wouldn't connect the dots.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
And there were battles during the pax romana, what's your point?
The fact that the devastation of the Napoleonic Wars and the World Wars were noticeably absent from Europe for a hundred years remains a tribute to Metternich's diplomatic brilliance... not to any world body.

My point is that south eastern Europe ravaged by almost continuous wars - added to which you have wars between major powers such as France, Britain, Germany-to-be, Austria and Russia - makes your talk of "100 years of peace in Europe" rather idiosyncratic, to say the least. Metternich role in what was going on in Europe at the time is of course overrated. It was a century of rapid industrialization at home and colonialization elsewhere. Priorities shifted. With Britain and France busy consolidating their overseas assets, "Austria etc." riven by mutinous regions and possessions, and Russia busy conquering the Caucasus and struggling with Imperial rival Turkey, it's hardly down to the genius of anybody inparticular that incompatible pursuits of interests did not culminate in the way they did in the 20thC. The 'Great Men' type analysis you appear to be subscribing to is a thing of textbooks from 30 or more years ago before the phenomena of imperialism, colonization, industrialization were analyzed and properly understood. The successive decades in which the utility of militarism on the continent was eclipsed by momentous economic transformations cannot be attributed to diplomats or be used in a facile way to try to attempt some daft anachronistic dismissal of a 20th-21stC institution like the U.N.

Here's why you're wrong this time.

Metternich pushed for and prevailed in prioritizing restoration of the old order with balance between the great powers along with peace. Of course there were other factors, to which I would principally add that the destructive Napoleonic wars and resulting restoration of the previous order turned many countries away from such broad and destructive wars in Europe that did not accomplish anything. Nevertheless, compare this to the European moves after World War I to punish Germany and create the Leage of Nations and you can perhaps learn to appreciate the wisdom of more successful diplomatic moves over a hundred years ago.

The UN simply has its limits. They cannot be hiddens. You should consider that your overuse of big words doesn't cover up your limited scope for analysis & logic. You insist on arguing by making many wrong statements about analysis even though they are deeper and more accurate than your own flailing attempts to sound intelligent. You usually distort the other point of view and try to reframe the other persons argument rather than just present evidence to attempt to debunk them. Your tangential reference to largely unconnected concepts calls for you to either support the connection by showing greater detail or at least focusing on explaining yourself better.

What does the industrial revolution have to do with the price of tea in China anyway?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You should consider that your overuse of big words doesn't cover up your limited scope for analysis & logic. You insist on arguing by making many wrong statements about analysis even though they are deeper and more accurate than your own flailing attempts to sound intelligent.

Ah yes, your off-the-shelf 'your IQ is low' counter-attack.

Good for you.

We'll just have to disagree over this one.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
The UN has not prevented any of the battles of the Cold War.

Wars remain a possibility in the future.

There is no guarantee, but with work the peace of the world can continue for a long time.

I don't think this is going anywhere, you obviously have an obssession with an inevitable war in s.america, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I don't think this is going anywhere, you obviously have an obssession with an inevitable war in s.america, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Diplomacy for self defense is not an obsession with an inevitable war. How are those similar?

Preparation in the face of foreign arm sales in Venezuela is simply planning to defense one's self or a country.

What do you think Columbia should do, ignore Chavez?

I should clarify that even the ABC+Mexico powers should seek to make any act of aggression a cause to bring the matter to the wider bodies of the OAS and the security counsel and NATO with their willingness to take active rolls in keeping the peace through diplomacy but also through troop contributions.


Unlike World War I, it is important not to divide the ABC powers into pro and anti chavez camps, and entangle the alliances of foreign powers into divided groups. There ought to be a representative coalition from both sides to keep down any act of aggression.