When was the last time we had a war? A real war. You might think: "2001/2003 retard. Where have you been?"
But that's not a real war. After the U.S. Marines handed over control to the Iraqi forces, (which they did. Hell yeah! Mission Accomplished!) I assume that the next course of action is to pack up and leave Iraq. That's not how real war goes. If it was a real war, Pres. Obama would absorb Iraq as the 51st state. Then we would all love him for bringing peace to Iraq. But I am getting ahead of myself. Sorry Obama. Praise be with you.
Even World War 2, the Korean War and the Vietnam War ended in all parties pretty well ending up where they started. (I.E. France gets all her stuff back from Germany, and Germany loses all of its Czech and Polish territory.)
Think of the Roman style of war. They would march into an enemy's territory, fight a pitched battle on some dude's field, and then proceed to either seige the city into submission, or just have the city handed to them. After one side loses, they don't exist anymore. Think of Medieval warfare. You usually try to capture as many of the other side's knights and nobility as possible, then you ransom them back and impoverish the state that you then march on.
But enough of that nonsense. The point I'm trying to make here is: are we better off with our "civilized" warfare? Is absorbing nations really a good thing? Think of the conquests of Mohammad in 7th century Arabia. Quoting Dan Carlin here, these conquests brought a "flood" of solid DNA to the region. No one argues that this was a bad thing. If Mohammad had taken the area and said "ok. This is mine. As you were." Could you imagine the genetics of the region today? But on the flip side, the Conquistadors of the 15th century screwed up the Mayan and Aztec cultures pretty good when they took over. So which side do you pick? Have at it in the comments section, gents. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a beautiful beach just down the street calling to me. I love summer. Adios, muchachos.
No comments:
Post a Comment