war

Stormy Seas

Yesterday I caught the end (the final two minutes) of a historical documentary of the life of Attila the Hun. It prompted me to read the entry of his life on Wikipedia. Through the links there connecting him with others — namely Genghis Khan (Temüjin) and Timur (Tamerlane), with the addition of Alexander the Great, I have found some traits that connected the four.

Firstly, all four were indeed hungry to expand the empires of their people. Attila had conquered much of Europe and continued to pursue further outreaching lands until his death in 453. Alexander the Great expanded his empire to further the Greeks’ knowledge of the extent of the world at the time, and made plans to strive beyond those boundaries. Of course, when their other, more questionable traits are considered, their overall reputation (save, perhaps, Alexander the Great) led them to be consigned as evil, vicious and villainous.

However, the great quality that is in common with all of them lies in their ascent to power and is the reason behind their dominance then and their noteriety now. The key was that they formed alliances with rival tribes. Doing so saved a lot of bloodshed early on, and ensured they had a large enough platform from which to build an empire.

You may well be wondering why I am writing this. I feel this second trait, the ability to unify vast areas of the world, is something that we lack today. I feel that the world needs a leader that can perform negotiations between sects of people and create unity amongst its people. However, can this be achieved without a bloodthirsty warmonger?

...with no replies just yet.

All Is Fair

<picture of a bomb>” />In some ways I feel sorry for the North Koreans. This is a country that is suffering from a poor economy and widespread poverty. The leader has two options: bow down to the rest of the world; or threaten the world into helping his country out.</p> <p>After so much state propaganda over so many years, the leader wasn’t going to have his country look weak to the rest of the world, so nuclear power it was. Costly mistake, but what other leader would readily throw his country to the mercy of the rest of the world? (Shame it is not the case that most would…)North Korea probably opted for the nuclear option having seen that all the other superpowers of the world – including its neighbour and greatest ally (until now), China – had developed nuclear power and are doing well for themselves. They are probably viewing the whole situation as a big case of hypocrisy, especially from the US who have their own nuclear weapons, I believe.</p> <p>The threat of a war frightens me. With the weapons becoming bigger and more destructive, there is no safe place to hide on this planet. Where do we go if we don’t want to play?</p> </div> <p class= ...with no replies just yet.

Henceforth

While I was writing my previous post, I was also watching the final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth. My mood has sunk a little. Although the programme is a comedy and had its share of humour, it dealt with the realities of the time. Soldiers were asked to follow orders without question; in contrast, a war was raging as a result of political differences. Thousands of soldiers were expected to throw their lives to the enemy for an argument that could not be explained by those fighting. Why was it started? Why did it continue?

How could any side take the moral high ground?

...with no replies just yet.