The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
In the event that a war should happen, it will undoubtedly be the fault of all those people and entities who should have acted to prevent it. That does not entitle us to just throw up our hands in horror and declare "game over". The idea that we should refuse to even contemplate the possibility is reminiscent of the attitude of much of the European left in the 1930s (all those who applauded the Munich agreements).
If there is an outbreak of war, that's a clear sign of failure. But things can always get worse. The aim is to smother armed conflict before the deaths number in the thousands. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
You will need at least one more digit to count the fatalities of even an unsuccessful attempt to start a civil war.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
And I am quite sure that much more people died because of austerity in the 2007-2013 cycle, then in the cases above.
In the coups/revolutions there were barely no direct deaths, probably little indirect deaths. The indirect death tool of austerity is surely greater already.
Sure, not civil war above. But serious events.
The name "war" might be ugly, but at the end of day what should count is human suffering. This "peace" has had many casualties already.
What about Yugoslavia, 1991? Note, 1991. i.e. when militias are terrorizing villages, the Yugoslav army is coming apart/turning into a Serbian army, and the Croatian army hardly even exists. As I have suggested, a joint Franco-German intervention would not have been easy, and there probably would have been months of mayhem before they got things locked down, but... tens of thousands of lives saved. It doesn't solve the problems that precipitated the war, but those problems were never serious enough to justify war. Instead of a decade of wars, a decade of establishing a political process for partition of territory.
Perhaps my scenarios are not realistic, but they are a lot more objective than conjectures about future civil wars. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
In the event that a war should happen, it will undoubtedly be the fault of all those people and entities who should have acted to prevent it. That does not entitle us to just throw up our hands in horror and declare "game over".
The idea that we should refuse to even contemplate the possibility is reminiscent of the attitude of much of the European left in the 1930s (all those who applauded the Munich agreements).
They had the excuse of the Great War. What's ours? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
What was the better survival strategy in 1934? To emigrate to South America or to stay in Europe? I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
by gmoke - May 16
by gmoke - Apr 22 5 comments
by gmoke - Apr 30
by Oui - May 24
by Oui - May 23
by Oui - May 2121 comments
by Oui - May 2011 comments
by Oui - May 20
by Oui - May 19
by Oui - May 1818 comments
by Oui - May 18
by Oui - May 1717 comments
by Oui - May 15
by Oui - May 1512 comments
by Oui - May 14
by Oui - May 136 comments
by gmoke - May 13
by Oui - May 1326 comments
by Oui - May 12
by Oui - May 119 comments
by Oui - May 111 comment