Every killing rampage has a psychological or rational explanation for it. Sometimes it can be tacked up to irrationality (madness), but sometimes rational reasons can explain it in ways that seem rational, or justified.
Wars are sustained rampages.
So, what about Word War I, for example?
The Germans were feeling their oats as a young united and strong nation, wanting the iron-rich parts of Alsace-Lorraine that the former empire France was owner of. Oua la! A terrible war to "end all wars". We wish.
The Ottomons and Austro-Hungarians wanted more lebensrauhm; the three "empires" thought that this would work for their good. It didn't. They combined alliances to take over or hold at bay other rich or historically powerful cultures: France, Italy, Russia, parts of the Middle-East and Asia.
And the massacres across the continents occurred in this, the Great War. And sowed more hate and antipathy. For later wars.
Long time rivals France and England joined forces to keep the central European forces from overrunning them. And the US jumped in to finish the bloodletting. For then, 1918.
A lot has happened since. Massacres happen in small doses and waves. Human nature is the same, the tricks and toys change and adapt. But massacres continue. Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Syria...
Within each culture there is a belief, call it ethno-centrism at its worst, that they are the norm and the blueprint, the mold to be emulated upon others.
Surely the United States is guilty of this. Take it for good or bad. Are we too belligerent with these beliefs? Many times we can achieve cultural predominance through soft power, no military forces needed to "take over". Money and entertainment can go a long way. So we, as powerful Americans, are always challenged and perplexed how and when to intervene.
Hence, we got into Europe in 1917 to help end things there. We were in the Philipines actively not long before that. And then all the other overt and covert actions over the years in the last 100 years. Very much an issue. Do we meddle too much? Do we get others and ourselves killed when there are not good enough justified reasons?
Some people say, simply and forcefully: "Let everybody else deal with their own problems!" or "We are not the world police!"
But there are killers in the world.
And we must make up our minds, constantly: is it worth it?
Is it worth losing our G.I.s, our sons and husbands, our brothers and sisters?
Some would let sleeping killer dogs lie.
The US may be blamed of aiding some of those dogs.
But some are obvious...or not.
And thus, the debates of politics, military moves, and history...
It may never end in our life time.
Blog it. EMC
Wars are sustained rampages.
So, what about Word War I, for example?
The Germans were feeling their oats as a young united and strong nation, wanting the iron-rich parts of Alsace-Lorraine that the former empire France was owner of. Oua la! A terrible war to "end all wars". We wish.
The Ottomons and Austro-Hungarians wanted more lebensrauhm; the three "empires" thought that this would work for their good. It didn't. They combined alliances to take over or hold at bay other rich or historically powerful cultures: France, Italy, Russia, parts of the Middle-East and Asia.
And the massacres across the continents occurred in this, the Great War. And sowed more hate and antipathy. For later wars.
Long time rivals France and England joined forces to keep the central European forces from overrunning them. And the US jumped in to finish the bloodletting. For then, 1918.
A lot has happened since. Massacres happen in small doses and waves. Human nature is the same, the tricks and toys change and adapt. But massacres continue. Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Syria...
Within each culture there is a belief, call it ethno-centrism at its worst, that they are the norm and the blueprint, the mold to be emulated upon others.
Surely the United States is guilty of this. Take it for good or bad. Are we too belligerent with these beliefs? Many times we can achieve cultural predominance through soft power, no military forces needed to "take over". Money and entertainment can go a long way. So we, as powerful Americans, are always challenged and perplexed how and when to intervene.
Hence, we got into Europe in 1917 to help end things there. We were in the Philipines actively not long before that. And then all the other overt and covert actions over the years in the last 100 years. Very much an issue. Do we meddle too much? Do we get others and ourselves killed when there are not good enough justified reasons?
Some people say, simply and forcefully: "Let everybody else deal with their own problems!" or "We are not the world police!"
But there are killers in the world.
And we must make up our minds, constantly: is it worth it?
Is it worth losing our G.I.s, our sons and husbands, our brothers and sisters?
Some would let sleeping killer dogs lie.
The US may be blamed of aiding some of those dogs.
But some are obvious...or not.
And thus, the debates of politics, military moves, and history...
It may never end in our life time.
Blog it. EMC
No comments:
Post a Comment