Wednesday, April 5, 2017

100 years ago...to save the world for democracy





5 comments:

Simon Jones said...

Some of our countries had been trying to save the World from 1914...

Clint said...

Oh how things have changed. 100 years ago they were reluctant to get involved with any wars now they seem to star them as often as not!

I know that was a deliberately provocative statement But no harm was intended and I hope no insult was given.

Clint said...

Opps typo START not Star!

Sapper Joe said...

@Simon: I do agree with you. I probably should have used quotation marks around "to save the world for democracy" as I was quoting President Woodrow Wilson for the reason for declaring war against the Central Powers vs. my own personal views.

Cheers,

Sapper

Sapper Joe said...

@Clint: No problem. I both agree and disagree with you on that statement. After WW2, the US found itself in a position of being a super power with the rest of the world basically in pieces. It used that power for both good and bad depending how the people in power at the high positions decided to weld their opinions and power. We also found ourselves tied to way too many overseas commitments (NATO, SETO, South Korea, etc., etc.) that we are basically back to the same issues as pre-WW1 with the defensive treaties. Most of our recent (last 50 years) involvements have really justifications, but just not agreed upon by everyone. It is easier to have most people support something when they see act of violence committed to them first (example Pearl Harbor or 9/11), but it is harder to show justification when the opponent has not done anything to them. It doesn't mean that it is still 'just', but it harder to prove justification if there really is a 'just' cause. While I will not get into a political debate about the US involvements in the last 50 years, at least not in anything that can be documented, I will say that there were some actions I supported wholeheartedly and others I completely disagreed with from the every beginning because I was not given any credible evidence that showed it to be 'just'. But I suspect that you and I would agree on several points.

But I do want to thank you for being a gentleman about identifying that it is a provocative statement and apologizing that you meant no personal insult. It is nice to see that civility is not dead especially in these days were both sides are more likely to shout down their opposites by labeling them with hateful labels or conducting violent protests to deny them their rights of free speech and assembly.

Cheers,

Sapper