Date: 17 Dec 96
From: Robert Ward <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: cj#625> Global Policeman or Bully?
>> the point is not whether there was provocation in those situations <<
The point I was trying to make was that it is over-simplistic to declare that
wars are "started" by one side, except in the legalistic sense that there is
(sometimes) a formal declaration of war. As Richard cited the US Civil as an
example : who actually started that? The Confederates becuase they started the
shooting? Or the Union for its refusal to negotiate? WHo started WW1? Serbia -
by shooting an Austrian Archduke, or Austria-Hungary through its ultimatum? (Or
was it a conflict waiting to happen, with the shooting simply a trigger?). WW2?
The UK (and France) formally declared war on Germany - did they start it, or was
it Germany by invading Poland?
>> US to any kind of provocation -- contrary to most other powers <<
Again (without wishing to defend US militarism!) the US is not the only offender
in this respect. The same could be said of the UK - the British empire was
created and maintained by military aggression. Ditto France - also a very
militaristic nation!
regards
RW
--------
Dear RW,
As you point out, it isn't easy to say who is "really" respsonsible
for a given historical event... and from a philosophical point of view,
it's probably simplistic to seek _any_ prime mover in the onion-skin layers
of mutual influence.
I believe, however, that our societal consensus reality suffers
from just the kind of over-simplistic judgements that you warn against.
Isn't it the case that most of our fellow citizens take it as obvious that
WW II resulted almost entirely from the evil-doing of A. Hitler?... and
that the U.S. role in the war was just like that of Bogart in Casablanca?
-- (trying to mind his own business, but when pressed, willing to be
couragous in the defense of justice and democracy.)
Against such an over-simplistic background, I was trying, in
"America & the NWO", to present a strikingly different perspective, but one
that I think is closer to a balanced view of history. I think "truth" --
if it can be found at all in history -- comes by looking via many
perspectives, forming a stereoscopic perception, if you will.
Cheers,
-rkm
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland
Cyberlib: www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: