World War I is the reason the world is as it is today

[Dallas Wildman]

So I've been making rounds throughout the libertarian circles, both CATO and the Independent Institute (the latter I think is more leaning) have both put out there own separate reports saying that world's boundaries exist today as a result of World War I.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=5014
The CATO article stresses had it not been for America's involvement in World War I the world would be a much better place.
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2014/woodrow-wilsons-great-mistake

[Ibrahim90]

exactly:

-Iraq as a state today wouldn't have existed--this artificial unit that forced three groups against each other in one country. Same with Syria. obvious benefits here are obvious....no Saddam, Al-Qaeda, 9/11, or ISIL,
-Palestine wouldn't be a hellhole for us.
-Israelis (or rather, just Jews) might move there anyways, but would differ in that they would have the rule of law forcing them to keep just in their dealings.
-The Ottoman Empire might have found a way to modernize its government, and rally the various peoples under it round a new more effective hub, or fragmented in a manner that is more natural, and less likely to cause long term violence (as was the case in the Baltic States and Muslim majority countries in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR).
-Our economy would have probably modernized completely, rather than partially: basically we're stuck in the year 1918 in many ways, and haven't left that vicious circle. increased train traffic from the (then under construction) Hejaz railway and Berlin-Baghdad rail way would have meant even greater overland trade than is possible today, and much sooner. Both were destroyed, or curtailed, because of WWI.
-Al-Saud wouldn't have become important outside the area...Islam would remain as it was: hated by Europeans because it was "decadent" and "libertine" (I'm not making that up).


That is just the shit (and only part of it), that would have been different where I'm from. Basically, no US intervention=better lives for everyone.

[Skm1091]

exactly:

-Iraq as a state today wouldn't have existed--this artificial unit that forced three groups against each other in one country. Same with Syria. obvious benefits here are obvious....no Saddam, Al-Qaeda, 9/11, or ISIL,
-Palestine wouldn't be a hellhole for us.
-Israelis (or rather, just Jews) might move there anyways, but would differ in that they would have the rule of law forcing them to keep just in their dealings.
-The Ottoman Empire might have found a way to modernize its government, and rally the various peoples under it round a new more effective hub, or fragmented in a manner that is more natural, and less likely to cause long term violence (as was the case in the Baltic States and Muslim majority countries in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR).
-Our economy would have probably modernized completely, rather than partially: basically we're stuck in the year 1918 in many ways, and haven't left that vicious circle. increased train traffic from the (then under construction) Hejaz railway and Berlin-Baghdad rail way would have meant even greater overland trade than is possible today, and much sooner. Both were destroyed, or curtailed, because of WWI.
-Al-Saud wouldn't have become important outside the area...Islam would remain as it was: hated by Europeans because it was "decadent" and "libertine" (I'm not making that up).


That is just the shit (and only part of it), that would have been different where I'm from. Basically, no US intervention=better lives for everyone.

No ww2, no cold war, no millions upon millions dead as a result of those two wars, so yup.

Seriously libertine?

[Ibrahim90]

No ww2, no cold war, no millions upon millions dead as a result of those two wars, so yup.

Seriously libertine?

yeah: you ever heard of the Odalisque schools of art, or the orientalist ones? people in Europe at the time were horrified/fascinated at the Near Eastern and Middle Eastern Practices of Polygamy, prostitution (and not the "professional" kind like you'd understand it), relatively easy divorces for both genders, presence at the time of loopholes round marriage (it is why Harems are possible historically), as well as the perceived love of luxury and excess in the region. (there's also the fanaticism stereotype, but not in the same sense as today).

I mean, compare that to the then (still) medieval attitude of your average Victorian or even enlightenment era European. Even sexual moderation must have appeared excessive and decadent to them....And yes, they thought the same more or less about the Chinese--at least the wealthy ones.

it apparently inspired a lot of erotic paintings and shit. This they attributed to religious and racial differences: apparently most people thought Islam was into licentiousness and shit, and that the locals were predisposed to laziness, indolence, and lust due to their living in a hot place and supposedly being rich (that last part as a stereotype is pre-islamic, dating back to the days when Rome first ruled the region.). Apparently that also meant people didn't attempt to actually understand how things really worked, or that the Seraglio wasn't as crazy a place as most people imagined. And of course, their fascination with all things oriental was pretty much like the Roman fascination: patronizing and shallow.

here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turkish_Bath

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_of_Algiers_in_their_Apartment

and those are the classier ones. 

frankly, I find this stereotype, while equally inaccurate to today's stereotypes, is at least amusing. It's like watching Tidus from FF X attempting to eat. No, I don't find it offensive really.