I thought that Germany was the aggressor in the First World War, wanting to establish themselves as the dominant power in Europe. They were ready with armies at the border of France and Belgium and were just looking for a pretext to start an invasion. If you have evidence to the contrary, that Germany was just taking defensive precautions, I would like to hear about it.
It seems pretexts are common, and somewhat necessary, in starting wars. It's not unlike a couple kids fighting, each one claiming "he started it." Claiming "they started it", and convincing folks both internally and internationally that "they" actually started it, seems very important in how wars are won and lost. I think Lincoln would have had a very hard time convincing the North to create armies to invade the South if the South had not fired on Ft. Sumpter. And the American view of WW2 was mostly "stay out of it" until Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Israel and the US attacking Iran during negotiations will probably prove to be a really bad move. It seemed like a good idea strategically but the "they started it" arguments are very weak. US popular support for this war is already very low, and will only get lower as fighting continues. US popular support for Israel is not very high and will only continue to decline. It is likely the US will reach a point where pulling out of the Middle East will seem the best option, and the US dropping support of Israel will become more and more likely. Then Israel will be left on its own. Sure, Israel has the near-term military advantage against its neighbors, but in a war of attrition without US help Israel is likely to lose.
Most countries prefer to stay out of regional conflicts. But if one side "starts it" without clear justification, other countries tend to help out the party that seems to be more "morally correct." This can certainly shift the balance of power.
Thank you. Bob, for your voice, though it may feel like a voice of one crying in the wilderness, one needs to keep crying.
I am also reminded of James Hillman's The Terrible Love of War which got a bad rap back when it came out, mostly because people (wilfully?) misunderstood it. He argued that even those of us opposed to war may get some gratification from it, seeing as so much of our culture is permeated by notions like heroism, glorification of power and violence, nationalism. That the vets report heightened intensity, clarity of purpose, comradeship as opposed to the tedium and confusion of civil life. Hillman argued that we need to confront the psychological purpose war serves before we can truly do away with it. As a self-professed army brat, no doubt you have some interesting thoughts about this, though I am not sure this kind of psychology is right up your alley.
Oh, this piece has now been (re-)posted by Elon twice. I'm interested to hear what you think about that, Bob. Strange bedfellows? What did this do to your traffic/views/followers etc.? It's a shame that we can't hear Mickey's reaction to that... with him buying his blue checkmark to get more attention and all that ;).
I thought that Germany was the aggressor in the First World War, wanting to establish themselves as the dominant power in Europe. They were ready with armies at the border of France and Belgium and were just looking for a pretext to start an invasion. If you have evidence to the contrary, that Germany was just taking defensive precautions, I would like to hear about it.
It seems pretexts are common, and somewhat necessary, in starting wars. It's not unlike a couple kids fighting, each one claiming "he started it." Claiming "they started it", and convincing folks both internally and internationally that "they" actually started it, seems very important in how wars are won and lost. I think Lincoln would have had a very hard time convincing the North to create armies to invade the South if the South had not fired on Ft. Sumpter. And the American view of WW2 was mostly "stay out of it" until Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Israel and the US attacking Iran during negotiations will probably prove to be a really bad move. It seemed like a good idea strategically but the "they started it" arguments are very weak. US popular support for this war is already very low, and will only get lower as fighting continues. US popular support for Israel is not very high and will only continue to decline. It is likely the US will reach a point where pulling out of the Middle East will seem the best option, and the US dropping support of Israel will become more and more likely. Then Israel will be left on its own. Sure, Israel has the near-term military advantage against its neighbors, but in a war of attrition without US help Israel is likely to lose.
Most countries prefer to stay out of regional conflicts. But if one side "starts it" without clear justification, other countries tend to help out the party that seems to be more "morally correct." This can certainly shift the balance of power.
Thank you. Bob, for your voice, though it may feel like a voice of one crying in the wilderness, one needs to keep crying.
I am also reminded of James Hillman's The Terrible Love of War which got a bad rap back when it came out, mostly because people (wilfully?) misunderstood it. He argued that even those of us opposed to war may get some gratification from it, seeing as so much of our culture is permeated by notions like heroism, glorification of power and violence, nationalism. That the vets report heightened intensity, clarity of purpose, comradeship as opposed to the tedium and confusion of civil life. Hillman argued that we need to confront the psychological purpose war serves before we can truly do away with it. As a self-professed army brat, no doubt you have some interesting thoughts about this, though I am not sure this kind of psychology is right up your alley.
Oh, this piece has now been (re-)posted by Elon twice. I'm interested to hear what you think about that, Bob. Strange bedfellows? What did this do to your traffic/views/followers etc.? It's a shame that we can't hear Mickey's reaction to that... with him buying his blue checkmark to get more attention and all that ;).