Stop World War Three
Hi, The Man.
"Abscond" is in my dictionary. So is "discovery", including its legal definition. "Habeous corpus" isn't, although "Habeas corpus" is. But I still can't find that ole "extingency" anywhere. "Exigency", sure. "Contingency", yep. But no "extingency", as per your post. That's "E X T I N G E N C Y". EE EX TEE I EN GEE EE EN CEE Y.
Still, I don't want to waste too much time arguing about non-existent words or spelling, while a world war may be starting, thanks to fanatics like you and Bin Laden.
Itz jusst dat dese cind ov missteaks sawrt ov luk badd wen yure klaming too bee ann eckspert inn internashunal lawwe, morrallitti and filosofy, annd dat evrywon els iz RONG!.
Re World War One and reply from Mark 1, Canada.
1. Thanks to my father, I'm well aware of "the parallels that can be drawn to today's military conflict". That was precisely one of my points - a warning of how a terrorist act on the homeland of a major power, leading it to attack another country, quickly plunged the whole world into war.
(See Nov 8th - "....compare it also with World War 1.
...immediate cause ...the terrorist assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand...Austria-Hungary suspected...Serbia of involvement......issued all kinds of demands to the Serbian government, 'pronounced the Serbian reply evasive and unsatisfactory', and declared war on Serbia on July 28".)
2. My main point, however, was that a number of posts have alluded to appeasement before World War Two, with the implication that NOT appeasing "the enemy" does a better job. World War One contradicts this.
3. I'd certainly agree that when "REASONABLE DIPLOMATIC MEANS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED IN THE FACE OF A DETERMINED AGGRESSOR, then sometimes more forceful
measures have to be taken", and that "YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE OR TALK WITH
THESE PEOPLE" but disagree that reasonable means were exhausted, disagree with the type of "more forceful
measures" used (See http://www.counterpunch.org/foley1.html and www.stopworldwar3.com - George Monbiot's article.)
, and think that neither can you negotiate or talk with some of the fanatics posting to this site, or with the fanatics in the Bush administration.
How difficult is that to understand..???
4. As to the "important facts" I allegedly "neglected to mention", I'm not sure what Mark is getting at, but I confess that I'm no expert on the nitty-gritty of exactly what happened immediately prior to the outbreak of war. So I'll quote from Carlton J. H. Hayes, Professor of History, Columbia University, Captain USA Military Intelligence Division 1918-1919, and US Embassador to Spain during World War Two.
"It was a calamity that the Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the Dual Monarchy" (of Austria-Hungary) "...at this critical juncture was Count Berchtold, a narrow, headstrong and sinister character. Ever since his accession to power...he had stubbornly refused to grant any concession to subject nationalities in the Austrian realm and had insistently pursued a most malevolent policy towards Serbia.
"In 1913, when Serbia was enlarging her territories at the expense of Turkey and Bulgaria, he had endeavoured to persuade Italy to join him in an armed attack upon her. Italy's refusal was galling to Berchtold and...to Conrad von Hotzendorff, the bellicose chief of the Austrian General Staff, who complained bitterly that he had twice prepared the armies of the Dual Monarchy for battle and that they could not for ever be disappointed.
"Now, in 1914, Berchtold instantly perceived in the murder of Francis Ferdinand the opportunity for the final reckoning with Serbia.....and Conrad was gleeful. Tisza, the Hungarian Premier....objected...and warned the Emperor Francis Joseph that the crime had been committed on Austrian soil by Austrian subjects, that there was no evidence of Serbia's complicity, and that Austria would universally be regarded as the disturber of world peace if she utilised the occasion to attack Serbia. Berchtold, however, had the ear and the sympathy of the senile Emperor.....
"...July 23...the Serbian Government received the Austrian ultimatum. It was couched in the most peremptory language and breathed a spirit of exasperation and determination....." (It demanded)..."Effective guarantees from the Serbian Government....Serbia was called upon to suppress anti-Austrian text-books from...schools, 'to accept the collaboration in Serbia... of representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government for the suppression of the subversive movement' and to signify unconditional acceptance of the whole ultimatum within forty-eight hours." (A "very
legitimate and reasonable request", according to Mark.)
On July 25 the Serbian Government replied...promising to comply with such demands as would not impair the country's independence and sovereignty, and offering to refer all disputed points to the international tribunal at The Hague or to a conference of the Great Powers. At the same time Serbia mobilised her armed forces. The Austro-Hungarian Government immediately pronounced the reply evasive and unsatisfactory, broke off diplomatic relations and ordered military mobilisation." (Mark calls this NOT rushing into war.)
And on the general background, Hayes has this to say......
"....In all civilised countries nationalism was heightened and intensified......by the spread of cheap chauvinistic journalism, by the constant increase of armed forces, and by the rising vogue of ultra-patriotic poets, historians, essayists.....
".....Under pressure from these powerful agencies of propaganda, nationalism tended to become strikingly intolerant. It emphasised what was peculiar to a nation rather than what was common to mankind. It firmly lodged in every people the conviction that they were superior to all other peoples. It gave to the masses in each country an unquestioning faith in their own collective virtue and wisdom and an equally unquestioning faith in the collective vice and depravity of their neighbours. Psychologically it paved the way for war....
".....Governments which might otherwise have been pacifistic were frequently goaded on to militancy by popular fervour, while governments which were habitually truculent knew that, no matter how secret and selfish their conduct had been, thay would have the unqualified support of the whole nation if affairs reached a crisis....
Parallels indeed. It's fairly simple. Ambitious fanatics, nutcases and ignorant gobshites - such as those who celebrated the September 11 atrocities, and such as The Man, John Rambo, and Red, White and Blue - on both sides, and the rest of us get massacred if we're not careful. How difficult is that to understand..????
YOU fine, but The Man Rambo etc At least give them credit for speaking their minds, repulsive though they are. Concern is that they're saying what Bush and Co are thinking. al-Qaeda can kill 00,000's even millions, Bush and Co, Putin and Co, China etc could kill us all.e
As I've said repeatedly, I wholeheartedly accept get Bin Laden etc. The question is how? Bombing NO. War on Afghan NO.
For an analysis of whether bombing legal. For analysis of what constitues proper response see
Instead of Jonathon etc. only comparing the current war against Afghanistan and al-Qaeda with World War 2 (Don't appease aggressors etc.), compare it also with World War 1.
The immediate cause of that war was the terrorist assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austria-Hungary Empire, in the city of Sarajevo (part of the empire), on July 23, 1914.
Austria-Hungary suspected the independent country of Serbia of involvement in the assassination, issued all kinds of demands to the Serbian government, "pronounced the Serbian reply evasive and unsatisfactory", and declared war on Serbia on July 28.
On July 30th, the Tsar, supporting Serbia, ordered Russian mobilisation. Germany, supporting Austria-Hungary, declared war on Russia on August 1st, and on Russia's ally, France, on August 3rd. Britain, also allied to France, declared war on Germany on August 5th.
So, there was no appeasement in the build-up to World War 1. On the contrary, the war broke out after a prolonged struggle for global influence, the intensification of rabid nationalism, a 25 year arms race, and all kinds of dire warnings and ultimatums by all sides.
And after the war was over, and 9 MILLION SOLDIERS, including 50,000 Irish and over 100,000 American, and 12 MILLION INNOCENT CIVILIANS had been butchered or starved or had died of disease, the German people were more or less left to rot. Just like the Palestinians were left to rot years later, and just like Afghanistan was left to rot in the 1990's. And as that neglect bred Hitler's rise to power, so it bred Bin Laden's.
So, taking 1914 or earlier as a starting point, rather than 1939 or 1941, not only did militant "self-defense" fail to prevent war, it actually CAUSED World War 1, and contributed largely to the even more disastrous World War 2 besides, and appeasement had little to do with either.