Western Imperialism: The reason for growth of radical islam and poor muslim lands

They didn't have one of the world's strongest armies. They were not even in control of large parts of Iraq.

Their Oil facilities were crippled and old.

The Western Sanctions and bombing campaign had destroyed the Iraqi regime and Iraq was effectively bankrupt by the end of the 90's.

They had oil resources SO WERE POTENTIALLY powerful.
They did have one of the world's largest army, which shows their POTENTIAL but the sanctions did affect it.

As I said, the sanctions and the war were means to reduce a potentially powerful nation, and it worked as you just proved yourself!

The Iraq war=western interference to ensure a potentially powerful nation does not become powerful (fact)

Response: The Ottoman Empire were not imperialists. It's up to you to show the difference.

Don't change what you write. You said one of the world's most "strongest" armies. That isn't the same as largest. As we know, Saddam Hussein couldn't even control the Northern Regions.

They were not potentially powerful because they couldn't use the oil reserves effectively.



No. You said the war. Not sanctions. I will quote you since you like to change what you write.

Exhibit one: its name is the Ottoman Empire.

I rest my case, m'lud!

Strongest and largest go hand in hand!

The whole point of my argument was, before you decided to butt in half ways through without even reading or understanding my argument, was that the west interfered with countries to reduce their power.
As an example I gave the Iraq war. Then you brought in the sanctions, and I said that those sanctions you mentioned backs up my point of interference!
The war was just one example, I never said it was the ONLY example. The sanctions are another example of western interference but I didn't use it as an example originally. What's your point? You're only proving my point by bringing up the sanctions, not disproving it. Are you trolling or something?

I am seriously starting to feel sorry for you. Look up what POTENTIAL means. If you have large oil resources, then you're POTENTIALLY powerful as you can learn how to use it effectively. That's why I wrote potentially powerful. Had they known how to use it, then they wouldn't have been potentially powerful, they WOULD have been powerful.

Anyways, I did say sanctions too! Read properly next time.
" Nevertheless, the western sanctions and western invasion are both what is called "western interference", my point exactly"

The Iraq war=western interference to ensure a potentially powerful nation does not become powerful (fact)

Not necessarily. The North Korean Army isn't anywhere near as powerful as the US.



I am taking issue with validity of the example(posted again below). Not the argument that you were having before.

I hope that clears up.



With Sanctions, they cannot use the Oil. So their large oil reserves do not mean anything.

So, they were not POTENTIALLY powerful.





Now Now...don't lie.....you wrote that after ............ this is what you wrote initially and this is what I replied to:



Also, try to keep your answers short.

Response: Empire does not mean imperialism, so such a claim is invalid. So yes, you should lay such a case to rest.

Are you playing stupid? When I said "as I said", I was referring to my previous statement of sanctions+war. Not of my original example. Is it that hard to understand? I did mention sanctions, thus my "as I said" does make sense, you claimed I never had mentioned sanctions so you were wrong.
I wrote that before you claimed I haven't said sanctions, it's in one of my first replies to you! I wrote "as I said" to highlight that I'm repeating myself. Nothing else.

The Iraq war=western interference to ensure a potentially powerful nation does not become powerful (fact)

Of course the sanctions made the oil useless, that's my whole point! The sanctions were a means to reduce a potentially powerful nation. By virtue of having lots of oil, they were potentially powerful as they could use it UNLESS the west interferes. Sanctions=interference. War=interference.

That is correct. You didn't say sanctions. That is why I took issue with the example.

You said:








But the West did interfere.

That means, they couldn't use it.



That means they are not potentially powerful.

I am not reading the rest. I already asked you to keep it short.

You don't know what potentially means. It means having the capacity of developing into something in the future. Iraq had oil, so they had the capacity of becoming rich and powerful in the future. They had oil, so they had potential. Simple. One day they would learn how to use it effectively. That is why the west interfered, with sanctions and with war. The sanctions didnt remove the oil from Saddams hands for all eternity you know, it's a very short term method.

By virtue of having lots of oil, they were potentially powerful as they could use it UNLESS the west interferes.

also, my point is that west interferes. whether by sanctions or the 1991 gulf war or the 2003 war- not the issue here. you have missed the point and moved to trivia. you agree that the west interferes, yes? you claimed you dont disagree? you seem to agree that at least by 1991 iraq was powerful, so you must agree that the 91 war at least proves my point. so my argument is valid.

Remember what you wrote before:



You wrote UNLESS the west inteferes.

The West did interfere. That debunks your argument.

Don't bring up a new one.




I don't want to go into the 91 Gulf War since this is about the Iraq War.

The west did interfere yes, .

By virtue of having lots of oil, they were potentially powerful as they could use it UNLESS the west interferes.

The 91 War proves that my point is valid, and that you're wasting your time on trivia.

The Iraq war=western interference to ensure a potentially powerful nation does not become powerful (fact)

The term "Iraq War" is used for the 2003- one.

Empire is an anglicisation of "Imperium"; Empirialist only isn't used because it is awkward to say.

Your argument seems to boil down to: "Imperialism is something that I don't like. I like the Ottoman Empire because they are muslims and so am I. Therefore, when the Ottomans annexed Bulgaria and took the Christian boys to be slave soldiers that is not imperialism."

Response: And empire still does not mean imperialism, no matter the anglicisation.

And my argument is clearly based on facts you are incapable of refuting. All historical evidence shows that the Ottomans were not imperialists. So your rebuttal simply boils down to "Ottomans are imperialists because they have to be. The West are imperilaists so lets call the Ottomans imperialists too. This way we're even."

What you wrote before:


...........................................................



Except we are talking about the Iraq War. So don't change what you write.

Original example:

The things you've been coming out with in this thread are truly unbelievable. Earlier I advised you to acquaint yourself with the scholarship on the Middle Ages, imperialism, and international relations, with the implication that that would be the first step towards avoiding making an utter fool of yourself in a discussion you are neither informed nor possibly even intelligent enough to participate in (although I cling to the hope that it is merely a woeful lack of education, not intellect, that you suffer from). It is clear that you have not taken these steps. Please please please read any reputable scholarly work on the Ottoman Empire and on the concept of Imperialism. For goodness sake, at least read Wikipedia. There's even articles on both of them on the Simple English Wikipedia if you have trouble with the long words and sentences in the regular articles. It will at least be a start. Please take at least the bare minimum steps to inform yourself.

Response: And yet the amusing part of your foolish reply is that you've failed to refute anything stated. So it is clearly your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject. I repeat, the Ottomans were not imperialists. Period. Now since you think you have proof otherwise, then where's the evidence? Oh that's right. You have absolutely none. So stop embarrasing yourself. Debunked as usual.

Seriously, if you have any intention of actually understanding the world and its history, you need to both read reputable history texts and develop the critical thinking and reading comprehension skills to understand them. You don't need an argument right now; you need an education. You need to really sit down and think about whether your goal is to increase your knowledge and understanding, or to remain mired in an ignorance and incomprehension that beggars belief and is painfully obvious to any serious student of history, and doubly so to anyone who has engaged in in-depth study of imperialism. It is clear that you have not the slightest acquaintance with serious scholarship on any of the issues you are attempting to engage in discussion on, nor even a passing acquaintance with the basic facts. Your complete lack of understanding of terms as fundamental to the discussion of imperialism as 'imperialism' makes it impossible for anything to penetrate your shell of blind self-assuredness. I repeat, please read up on this topic. Even just looking up the definition of imperialism will be a good start.

Response: Again you embarrass yourself. Whatt's amusing is that you imply that I need to be educated on the sybject and you don't. Yet when asked to prove that the muslims or the Ottomans were imperialists, you still have presented nothing. The reason is obvious. It's because you clearly have no knowledge or logic of the subject and can't prove your already exposed claim. Try again.