Quote from dcraig:
I will not quote all of this nonsense, but this bit is just a little bit too much to leave untouched.
When it comes to slaughter might I remind you that the "West" fought two absolutely horrendous World Wars in the last century. The generals and captains of industry and politicians had few qualms about the slaughter of millions upon millions of their own people. Make no mistake, these were very much Western wars. Nothing that any Islamic nation has done in that century can hold a candle to these atrocities. I suggest you rethink the moral purity of the West.
Your banging of the war drum is as old as time - and as old as imperialism. Demonize your enemies, hold them up not amenable to reason. Assert absolute faith in your moral superiority and march the suckers off to war.
It makes me want to puke.
On the surface and within the romper room of childish naievity it all sounds as good points.
But I think you are missing key factors and none of these can be wholly described as "Western Wars". In fact you missed the huge hint in the not so subtle titles the conflicts have been given - e.g.
World War.
So let's correct a few error up front then move on to other things.
WWI Refuted:
Apart from the other tensions at the time (e.g. none the least was the natural deconstruction of the over extended Ottoman Empire and all of its social & economic fallout) the actual event that started WWI was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (heir to the Austro-Hungarian) and his wife Sophie.
Recall not who succeeded in the actual assassination (one wimpy Gavrilo Princip a Serb) but rather "what" group was associated with it. That group was "The Young Bosnia" organization which had links to the notorious Black Hand organization (members from Serbian & Ottoman Empire states). As a complaint here I also casually mention the injustice that Pricip was only sentenced to 20 years prison for setting in motion the events that killed millions. Do you consider Bosnia and Serbia "The West" by current conventions?
Pricip was only one of 7 co-conspirators who lined the Archduke's parade route to attempt to murder him. But recall that Pricip was not in the honored first position and only succeeded later by pure chance. No, the person standing first in line in the honored position along the parade route (in an apartment above it) to get the first opportunity at the assassination was a Bosnian
Muslim named Mehmed Mehmedbašiæ.
Mehmed lost his nerve as the Archduke's car passed due to the presence of nearby security forces and opted to let one of the other 6 down-line assassins attempt it. The number 2 man Nedeljko Ãabrinoviæ (an anarchists from Sarajevo ) botched it as the Archduke's driver saw him toss a bomb and accelerated past it. The bomb detonated and wounded other members of his party following in cars behind him. The Archduke later instructed his chauffeur to take him to visit the wounded members of his party. The chauffeur made a wrong turn right near where Pricip was standing in a state of dejection for his group failing its mission. He then calmly walked up and murdered Sofia and the Archduke at point blank range. The resulting outrage in Europe and aftermath is history.
Therefore because of the nationalities of forces behind the circumstances precipitating the war and the decaying empires and state of the world at the time I conclude that WWI was not a western war. Rather it was a transitional war caused by the decline of the Muslim Ottoman Empire and the West's rise to power. It was directly attributable to conflicts and the tensions arising from various collapsing empires . Thus it was not "The West" against "The West" as you purport.
WWII Refuted:
I'll be more brief here and take the easy way out. Contrary to what you assert, it was not "The West" at war with itself in WWII either. It was the Axis Powers (predominantly Japanese/Asia, and the Fascist nations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy). The Japanese/Asian component is rather interesting because its participation completely and utterly trashes your nonsensical assertion that this was a Western War.
Now that this is all tidied up lets get onto more important and interesting matters.
The "interesting" thing about current middle east circumstances is in noting the parallels between Nazi Germany and Iran. Many people are clueless that Persia was renamed "Iran" as a tribute to the fascist ideals of the Nazi Germans. During WWII they were in fact close friends and essentially a puppet state to the Nazis (as was Iraq by the way). I have been told without confirming it for myself that the name "Iran" in fact translates as "Arian" in the Farsi language. Interesting no? What attempts to resurrect itself out of Iran to stir the world to massive conflict is essentially the bastard child of Hitler himself (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ). And this bastard completely embraces the very same contempt and hatred that Hitler had for non-Arians and in particular Jews. Study the man and the ideals closely and see for yourself.
The world is about to go to war again to combat fascism. Hopefully this time it will be the end of it.
BTW I wanted to ask tongue and cheek why are you attempting to demonize me here? Apart from making you want to puke can't you find some common ground from which to appeal to reason? Eh?
As for me, rather than puke you make me want to pray that naive people can abandon their blind hypocrisy and infantile naivety and idealism. Try to get some common sense and listen to reason (
) while there is still time.
Of course war should be avoided when possible and when people can be reasoned with. But the West at large have tried that over and over again with Iran and met with scorn and contempt. The madman over there has called for the annihilation of another sovereign country that is friendly to the West. Would you have us rather ignore that and hope that he won't make good on his promise?
There are times when unproductive talking only worsens the situation by serving to delay the inevitable to the point that it grows more lethal in time. In such times appealing to reason where none exists becomes a weapon against us. Why play along to that end and give a declared enemy a weapon to use against us?
Pacifism and capitulation has never proven to work in all of history. Can you show me one clear single example of a pacifist country that still has sovereign national boundaries still in existence today?
Note: Don't say "Switzerland" since the myth of its "neutrality" is only a recent happening that's not really been put to the test since WWII. Besides geopolitically it's land locked and protected by the blood and guarantees of other nations and is pragmatically more a "city-state" than a nation (relative to the majority of nations). Besides a doctrine of neutrality is not the same as being a pacifist and anyone can make that declaration for all its worth. In fact, the Swiss are not pacifists and have fought nobly in many wars and contributed effective forces in various European conflicts. They have earned the status they currently enjoy (e.g. Battle of Morgarten, participation of Swiss mercenaries, Swabian War, Battle of Marignano, battles of Villmergen, Swiss peasant war of 1653 etc. etc.). But pacifism is a myth with no surviving examples.
TS
P.S. Some need to hear a beating drum to remind them since the clock ticks down toward confrontation.
