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

>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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

>former Prime Minister

Ain't even gonna' read.

Hahahaha. You just tried to explain the Vietnam war without even mentioning France. But wait, you educated me
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

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

Nationalism WAS the cause behind the Vietnam War.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.