Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Poland warns Brussels it will DESTROY the EU if it tries to punish Britain for leavin Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 34908seikj)
    >former Prime Minister

    Ain't even gonna' read.
    This is also the official position of Poland.

    Poland is worried that if the EU punishes the UK, Polish workers in the UK will have to come back to Poland. They are very interested in making a soft deal with the UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am looking forward to observing any changes in the EU in the following years.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    This is also the official position of Poland.

    Poland is worried that if the EU punishes the UK, Polish workers in the UK will have to come back to Poland. They are very interested in making a soft deal with the UK.
    Unfortunately I think the UK will push for stricter migrant controls from Eastern Europe. Britain needs more skilled labour from the world over rather than low-skilled Polish workers.

    Saying that it's the same upper-middle class career politicians involved so they'll no doubt sympathise with corporate desire for cheap and plentiful labour, although for the sake of British wages across the board I'd rather it's limited somewhat.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    I actually quoted the Merriam-Webster definition, not sure what you read

    Clearly you're now getting defensive and unwilling to see reason; you've trying to claim religious motivation is the same as nationalism when the two have nothing in common. Religious belief has nothing to do with one's view on a country, as proven by the Vatican which extended influence over entire continents :facepalm:

    I know why Vietnam happen. You clearly don't as proven by your childishly simplistic take on 'Nam

    Obviously you've some sort of problem as you're fervently arguing about something you don't understand. Maybe you should talk to someone or take up yoga? I don't think forums are a good outlet for you.
    I didn't say your definition is wrong - I said you failed to understand its meaning.

    I'm not getting defensive mate. You simply fail to argue persuasively.

    Erm, you wot? Have you ever heard of religious nationalism? Please research what you're saying before making a false point. When religion and state are one, religious belief is part of the notion of nationalism, not least with the Crusades where the spread of Christianity was the focal point.

    Not really, you didn't. You provided a basic account of it (which was partially incorrect). So, before becoming all emotional and whatnot, I suggest -as above- that you research your stuff.

    The ad-hominems are delicious, not least because they prove who has lost this 'argument'. All in all, you have not provided any war where nationalism was not the driving force, and have failed to realise that religious nationalism exists (I'll leave the Vietnam war aside).

    Case dismissed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Alright then. Let's play this game of yours.

    Name me one war that was not intended to either promote one State's interests (i.e its leader's vision), in terms of religion, monetary gains, lands or similar.

    I'll be waiting. Probably eternally.
    "The cause of all wars was nationalism.........if you include everything else - such as religion and wealth - as nationalism."

    Mong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    "The cause of all wars was nationalism.........if you include everything else - such as religion and wealth - as nationalism."

    Mong.
    Erh people. The ignorance is hilarious.

    http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/facul...orthcoming.pdf

    http://www.bujournal.boun.edu.tr/docs/13330942935.pdf

    Here's some food for thought. Or the whole nutrition in your case.

    [The ad-hominem here was also delicious. Tanks]
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    I didn't say your definition is wrong - I said you failed to understand its meaning.

    I'm not getting defensive mate. You simply fail to argue persuasively.

    Erm, you wot? Have you ever heard of religious nationalism? Please research what you're saying before making a false point. When religion and state are one, religious belief is part of the notion of nationalism, not least with the Crusades where the spread of Christianity was the focal point.

    Not really, you didn't. You provided a basic account of it (which was partially incorrect). So, before becoming all emotional and whatnot, I suggest -as above- that you research your stuff.

    The ad-hominems are delicious, not least because they prove who has lost this 'argument'. All in all, you have not provided any war where nationalism was not the driving force, and have failed to realise that religious nationalism exists (I'll leave the Vietnam war aside).

    Case dismissed.
    You are getting defensive - I'm guessing you're just trying to put your BA to use?

    Here's something to prove you wrong - explain how the Vietnam war was due to nationalism.

    Also, if all war is due to Nationalism, explain bodies such as NATO and the UN peacekeepers.

    Do you know what's delicious? Having other things to do than waste time arguing pedantic points with strangers on the internet. Keep it real bruv.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    You are getting defensive - I'm guessing you're just trying to put your BA to use?

    Here's something to prove you wrong - explain how the Vietnam war was due to nationalism.

    Also, if all war is due to Nationalism, explain bodies such as NATO and the UN peacekeepers.

    Do you know what's delicious? Having other things to do than waste time arguing pedantic points with strangers on the internet. Keep it real bruv.
    Defensive = right? Sure

    The US tried to stop the spread of communism (i.e the divide in the country itself). Communists, much like any other status, believe that their beliefs are superior to those of others and the must be instilled in the State. Ringing a bell?

    :facepalm:NATO and the UN (to a lesser extent) try to DEFEND AGAINST nationalist attacks, not least that of Russia (in terms of insurgence), but also other external factors. As I said, the root of every war in nationalism - in this case, NATO defends against such nationalism, but it is not rare that the driving force behind its own goals is nationalism (per the US).

    Tanks.

    [PS: I'm not doing a BA]
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Defensive = right? Sure

    Erm, I already did - getting slow? The US tried to stop the spread of communism (i.e the divide in the country itself). Communists, much like any other status, believe that their beliefs are superior to those of others and the must be instilled in the State. Ringing a bell?

    :facepalm:NATO and the UN (to a lesser extent) try to DEFEND AGAINST nationalist attacks, not least that of Russia (in terms of insurgence), but also other external factors. As I said, the root of every war in nationalism - in this case, NATO defends against such nationalism, but it is not rare that the driving force behind its own goals is nationalism (per the US).

    So, now that I've educated you, I suppose I'm done here. Do others a favour and think (+research) before opening your mouth and spewing crap.

    Tanks.

    [PS: I'm not doing a BA]
    Hahahaha. You just tried to explain the Vietnam war without even mentioning France. But wait, you educated me :rofl:
    Go and pick up a history book - you're talking about things you don't understand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 34908seikj)
    >former Prime Minister

    Ain't even gonna' read.
    Lmao THIS, former prime ministers always run their mouths
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    Hahahaha. You just tried to explain the Vietnam war without even mentioning France. But wait, you educated me :rofl:
    Go and pick up a history book - you're talking about things you don't understand.
    "Hahahaha" - you failed to realise what you yourself asked? I didn't 'explain' the Vietnam war - I explained how nationalism was part of it.

    Thus far, all you've given me is, essentially, knee-jerk reactions. At least you realised the immense stupidity of your original comment.

    I'm always willing to help the foolish and ignorant, so feel free to ask whatever else you might need
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    "Hahahaha" - you failed to realise what you yourself asked? I didn't 'explain' the Vietnam war - I explained how nationalism was part of it.

    Thus far, all you've given me is, essentially, knee-jerk reactions. At least you realised the immense stupidity of your original comment.

    I'm always willing to help the foolish and ignorant, so feel free to ask whatever else you might need
    Your original comment was that nationalism was the cause of all wars. Not that it was only a part of it. Keep up

    Here's a question - what's your degree in? Because I feel that you're compensating here by lecturing strangers on something you seem woefully informed on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    Your original comment was that nationalism was the cause of all wars. Not that it was only a part of it. Keep up

    Here's a question - what's your degree in? Because I feel that you're compensating here by lecturing strangers on something you seem woefully informed on.
    You're taking two different parts of quotations and using them in the same way. Way to use a fallacy.

    Nationalism WAS the cause behind the Vietnam War. Are you seriously disputing this? If so, you should follow your advice on picking a history book.

    In the post above, I counter-argued your childish point (which had nothing at all to do with your own question).

    How does a specific degree correlate with making an argument on something/compensating by "lecturing strangers"(particularly so when you quoted me and tried to be a smart arse, failing miserably in the process)? Started to get delirious?

    You keep saying I'm woefully informed and whatnot yet you've not actually provided any basis for this claim. You said religion and nationalism cannot be combined, I proved you wrong. You said the Vietnam War was not caused by nationalism, I proved you wrong, and then you started the usual straw man arguments and pedantic (yet wrong) points.

    So, we yet again arrive at the conclusion that all you've given are knee jerk reactions.

    When you actually prove me wrong -that is, by giving a specific war and specifically with sources show that it was not caused by nationalism- we shall talk. Of course, we all know you'll reply with some unsubstantiated remark with the same emoticons you've been using again and again.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You're taking two different parts of quotations and using them in the same way. Way to use a fallacy.

    Nationalism WAS the cause behind the Vietnam War. Are you seriously disputing this? If so, you should follow your advice on picking a history book.

    In the post above, I counter-argued your childish point (which had nothing at all to do with your own question).

    How does a specific degree correlate with making an argument on something/compensating by "lecturing strangers"(particularly so when you quoted me and tried to be a smart arse, failing miserably in the process)? Started to get delirious?

    You keep saying I'm woefully informed and whatnot yet you've not actually provided any basis for this claim. You said religion and nationalism cannot be combined, I proved you wrong. You said the Vietnam War was not caused by nationalism, I proved you wrong, and then you started the usual straw man arguments and pedantic (yet wrong) points.

    So, we yet again arrive at the conclusion that all you've given are knee jerk reactions.

    When you actually prove me wrong -that is, by giving a specific war and specifically with sources show that it was not caused by nationalism- we shall talk. Of course, we all know you'll reply with some unsubstantiated remark with the same emoticons you've been using again and again.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You claim that Nationalism is the cause of all wars, including Vietnam, yet seem oblivious to the actual root cause of the Vietnam war, shown by you mentioning America and not France. :top:

    I'll ask again - what's your degree in?
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Nationalism WAS the cause behind the Vietnam War.
    Crass and simplistic.

    As EH Carr wrote, any history student who attributes a great and complex event to a single cause in an examination paper would be lucky to get a Third.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    You claim that Nationalism is the cause of all wars, including Vietnam, yet seem oblivious to the actual root cause of the Vietnam war, shown by you mentioning America and not France. :top:

    I'll ask again - what's your degree in?
    I'm not being oblivious - you're being too dense.

    So, what you're telling me - a) the Indochina War 'caused' the Vietnam war which means b) that the cause was necessarily not nationalism. Is that it?

    Because nationalism was not the cause of the Indochina War, and apparently -according to you- it was not the cause of the Vietnam War because its cause was the Indochina War and therefore nationalism cannot have been a cause.Want the facepalm now or later on then?

    You need to realise that 'cause' isn't an absolutist idea.

    The Indochina War 'led' in a sense to the Vietnam War, but it itself was the result.

    Also, the two wars are different wars. It seems you forgot your own point in your attempt to use straw-mans to avoid your silliness.

    And I'll ask again too - how is this relevant? You've ran out of excuses?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Crass and simplistic.

    As EH Carr wrote, any history student who attributes a great and complex event to a single cause in an examination paper would be lucky to get a Third.
    Read my reply above. I've addressed this at least twice in this thread (but some people refuse to even read the points).
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    When you actually prove me wrong -that is, by giving a specific war and specifically with sources show that it was not caused by nationalism- we shall talk.


    Serious historians argue that the whole concept of "nationalism" is a modern construct. Many of the European "nation states" (Germany, Italy most notably) did not even exist until the second half of the nineteenth century.

    Before "nationalism" (that is for most if mankind's recorded history) wars were often imperial, dynastic or religious.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    I'm not being oblivious - you're being too dense.

    So, what you're telling me - a) the Indochina War 'caused' the Vietnam war which means b) that the cause was necessarily not nationalism. Is that it?

    Because nationalism was not the cause of the Indochina War, and apparently -according to you- it was not the cause of the Vietnam War because its cause was the Indochina War and therefore nationalism cannot have been a cause.Want the facepalm now or later on then?

    You need to realise that 'cause' isn't an absolutist idea.

    The Indochina War 'led' in a sense to the Vietnam War, but it itself was the result.

    Also, the two wars are different wars. It seems you forgot your own point in your attempt to use straw-mans to avoid your silliness.

    And I'll ask again too - how is this relevant? You've ran out of excuses?
    Go look up why the Viet Minh were fighting - hint: it wasn't nationalism. The fact you are trying to reduce all wars to one factor is just laughable.

    Why are you avoiding saying what your degree is? Seems like you realise your pseudo-historical knowledge will fall flat once you admit your degree. And yes, I use that term loosely.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Serious historians argue that the whole concept of "nationalism" is a modern construct. Many of the European "nation states" (Germany, Italy most notably) did not even exist until the second half of the nineteenth century.

    Before "nationalism" (that is for most if mankind's recorded history) wars were often imperial, dynastic or religious.
    Being imperialistic, or having religious motives does not mean nationalism is inapplicable. If anything, certain writers consider them synonymous.

    As a word, it is modern, of course. As a concept, not at all.

    (Original post by geoking)
    Go look up why the Viet Minh were fighting - hint: it wasn't nationalism. The fact you are trying to reduce all wars to one factor is just laughable.

    Why are you avoiding saying what your degree is? Seems like you realise your pseudo-historical knowledge will fall flat once you admit your degree. And yes, I use that term loosely.
    Yes, which originated from the alliance of the nationalist parties (and from which members were recruited from). You've outdone yourself here.

    History does not necessitate a degree. If you're doing history, I'm getting ready to laugh further. But you haven't yet answered how that is relevant...? Have you ran out of silly things to say so you're swaying entirely off-topic?

    As expected, of course.

    Not much else to say. You said that religious nationalism does not exist. You said that the wars you yourself quoted had nothing to do with nationalism. You've added more stuff which is even more incorrect. The thing speaks for itself.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 10, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.