METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
Wars
|
Wars |
|
|
The Future of World Wars
World War III and the Muslim Mentality(4th edition - May 2007) by A.O. Kime While perhaps predicting the destructive nature of World War III should be left to Nostradamous, nonetheless there seems a fair chance it won’t be overly destructive, so far it hasn’t been. Yes, it appears World War III is already underway... although it is still in its initial stage, its embryonic stage. While this developing ogre can still be aborted, although being one full of contradictions, but if it isn't, it could prove quite different than the two previous world wars. For one thing, it would be a battle, perhaps the final battle, between two combatants which have been at odds for more than 1,200 years. Over the ages however the matter became more complex and thus obfuscated itself. It became a shapeless glob of new issues entwined with the old and today subject to countless characterizations. While the fight effectively began over the racial domination of Spain in the 8th century, religious ideologies soon became the primary issue and to lesser extent political ideologies. And, after 12 centuries of mutual hatred, it is the longest running racial confrontation on earth. While it might not be a 'race war' per se, in one respect it is... many westerners are suspicious of anyone who 'looks Arab' and, undoubtedly, Arabs are suspicious of 'European-looking' people. Yet, this is largely a happenstance situation due to the close proximity of their home territories and not inherently ingrained that these two peoples should be at odds. It is an unnatural hatred which was, and is, religiously-sponsored. Further, not all people hate, hate the same, or hate the same people. The passing centuries made identifying these two combatants also a problem... countries appear and disappear, alliances change, peoples intermix, intermarry, migrate and are identified differently. As a result, this war could be considered as being either (1) the West versus the East, (2) western civilization versus religious fanaticism, (3) Christianity versus Islam, or poetically (4) the 21st century versus the Middle Ages. Assuredly other ways to describe it also exist. Would this qualify as a world war though? Well, there are enough countries involved if you factor in the worldwide terrorist attacks. It seems only the continent of South America is being spared so far… although strange because it is largely a 'Catholic continent'. The Catholics have been combatants since they first fought the Moors over the possession of Spain and the two have been enemies ever since. Of course the 'Moors', a mix of Arabs and Caucasoids from North Africa, is a term no longer used but their descendents, however diffused they might be today, could be referred to as simply Muslims for this purpose. The Muslim religion is Islam... its roots going back to the 7th century. While early-on Islam subscribed to Judaism and Christianity, then to later believe itself the fulfillment of these two, that didn't fix twelve hundred years of hatreds. It seems both sides, however these 'sides' can be described, haven't forgotten their losses due to each other's brilliant military campaigns. As a result, the fighting over the past centuries could be considered a draw. Comparing world warsWhile there are, and will be, tragic aspects to this conflict, there is more to the story than the battlefields... both important and interesting. One is about the nature of world wars… although only two have occurred so far. While it seems certain we’ll have more, it may have been presumptuous to think it was a good idea to call them 'world wars'. Actually World War I wasn’t called that at first, it wasn’t until shortly after hostilities began again (World War II) that it was decided ‘The Great War’ should be called 'World War I' instead... and the new hostilities 'World War II'. Before it got its name changed, 'The Great War' was also referred to as ‘The War to End All Wars’. Obviously, its second name was a hope dashed. Whether the amount of destruction should weigh-in has not yet been clearly established however… although surely a factor the war-labelers will consider. Until then, uncertainty exists. As it is, if a worldwide conflict proves not nearly as destructive as the first two world wars, people may not think it should qualify. The Cold War was a conflict involving enough countries but since there was little associated collateral damage, it wasn’t called a world war. Perhaps it was only because the regional conflicts which the Cold War spawned weren’t added together. While the term 'world war' made perfect sense in the 1940’s, it created a dilemma for the know-it-all psychologists who came along later, they prefer labels with a psychological 'spin'. Except for the fact World War II was more destructive than World War I because of the advanced technology, they were remarkably similar. It was practically a rerun. It is unlikely future world wars will be quite so similar however. As is the case with this one, future world wars may be fought on different ground and involve different combatants. Since World War II was more destructive than its predecessor, most people believe World War III will be even worse… but that shouldn't necessarily be expected. In other words, two world wars aren’t enough to make a projection. For example, if the case was reversed and the first was worse than second, we might be inclined to think the trend looked promising. Of course, looming in the background today is the wherewithal for even greater destruction. While almost everyone believes atomic weapons will be used on both sides during World War III, that may not happen but even if it does, it may be limited. If say, only a few dozen H-bombs were used, the death and destruction still wouldn’t equal World War II. It would probably take a hundred or more. If World War III won’t be pitting the USA, Russia and China against each other at some point, the damage could be fairly limited. Even if they were, that doesn’t mean atomic weapons will be used. World War II set an important precedent. During World War II neither side used poison gas like they did in World War I for fear the enemy would follow suit. As insurance however, both sides kept poison gas in their arsenals just in case. The ghastly business of poison gas warfare during World War I was a no-win situation for everyone. Therefore, one could conclude, it is possible we could have several more world wars before H-bombs are used. Calling them 'world wars' a bad idea?It should be no surprise there will be an unwillingness of governments to call this conflict World War III. The reason is psychological, both politically and strategically. To call it a world war would have the effect of pointing out the seriousness of the conflict and would increase the pressure on leaders to make choices. If it isn’t called a 'world war' then leaders can waffle and it is often better that officials do nothing. In theory, there are psychological benefits from calling a conflict by the least egregious-sounding term possible. In theory, it should help contain the conflict and keep it from getting worse and spreading. That’s probably why countries don’t officially declare war on each other anymore… it takes away their elbow room. The grandiose declarations of war during the first half of the twentieth century had the effect of boxing in the leaders... often forcing them into making on-the-spot cataclysmic decisions without benefit of due diligence. Likewise, treaties which proclaim mutual assistance in the event of war seem to have lost their appeal as well. After all, history has shown treaties aren’t exactly something you can take to the bank... although NATO still has faith in the concept. At any rate, not until this conflict is over will the authorities and media begin to admit it was really a world war… which may always be the case. While governments will name a conflict in a manner of their choosing, and keep officially referring to it as such, that's the extent of it... they haven't yet found a way to force the public to likewise use it. We can see how it's done... when the fighting begins, a label for the conflict is chosen for its political and psychological value. Nonetheless, even though official names carry a lot of weight, it is just hoping they will stick. Some don't... like the one for the Korean War, one of the first conflicts to be psychologically labeled. While it was being fought, it was officially called a 'police action' but nobody liked that label... in fact, despised it. It is apparent, governments don't like to call a war a war anymore.... much less call one a 'world war'. However divisive though, if it helps contain the conflict then it's a good idea. But... is it working? Currently, the war in Iraq is most often called just that… simply ‘the war in Iraq’. Of course, that means nobody likes the official name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. Similarly, in the first Iraq conflict (1991), instead of the official label of 'Desert Storm', most preferred ‘Gulf War’. Worldwide, some considered the first conflict merely the 'extraction' of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and not really a war whereas critics call the current conflict an 'invasion', a more egregious-sounding term. Obviously, some terms are attempts to create a psychological impression, but many are expressions of one's actual sentiments. Nonetheless, official names have to be a fair characterization otherwise they won't stick. The label 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' won't last any longer than ‘The War to End All Wars’. The 'spin' is too obvious. Also horrible was the highly pre-publicized and televised attack billed "Shock and Awe". It exemplified arrogance like no other event in history. The Muslim mentality and warLet’s look deeper into the current conflict in Iraq, the caldron of World War III, of which worldwide terrorism is quite related. For that matter, the Israeli-Palestine conflict is related. It boils down to two major problems western civilization have with Arabs… the aggressive nature of Islam and the Muslim mentality. The Muslim mentality, still infected with a religious ideology reminiscent of the Middle Ages, more-so being the vestiges of the Dark Ages, fanatical to the utmost degree, hasn’t evolved with the times like other religious stances. At one time, the Catholic mentality was equally narrow-minded, equally evil, but that began to change after the horrible days of the Spanish Inquisition. In the last century or two the Catholics developed a live-and-let-live attitude. Muslims haven’t yet subscribed to that and thus are still fighting Charlemagne. It is unclear what made the Catholics less fanatical but it happened nonetheless. Perhaps they finally saw the downside. So what is the holdup with the Muslims? Perhaps it is the cursedness of a long memory. As a comparison, however related or unrelated, memory played a major role in the Serbian-Bosnia conflict … wrongs from centuries past were never forgiven. So perhaps it was forgiveness which helped Catholicism evolve... finally recognizing 'forgiveness' is a cornerstone of Christianity. Of course, the scope of forgiveness would include forgiving people for having a different religion. At any rate, the Spanish Inquisition (Catholic) is an example where unchecked fanaticism will go and, as if an Inquisitionist on the prowl, Islam is knocking on the door… everyone’s door. While religious fanaticism is a danger in itself, of an insane and self-destructive nature, the Middle East lunacy of today isn’t just because of their religious fervor but also because of a nationalist fervor... similar to Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism. Infected in two major ways, it is a multidimensional mental illness. Not only are many Muslims a danger to the world but a danger to themselves as well... daily are the Sunnis slaughtering fellow Muslim Shiites and elsewhere in Iraq it is the Sunnis versus the Kurds. Worldwide however it is Muslims vs. Hindus, Muslims vs. America, Muslims vs. Israel but to sum it up, it is Muslims versus everyone else. In their bombsights are even non-Muslim kindergarteners. It is total madness. In order to free all Muslims from culpability, the Muslim hierarchy must isolate these perpetrator as individuals and publicly disavow them and their activities. Until that happens, all Muslims will be held responsible. If the Muslim hierarchy doesn't do this, World War III will surely become full-blown. It is unfortunate fanatics do not see religious fanaticism as being the 'spiritual road-to-ruin', a manmade path leading away from God. In any quarter, under any banner, religious fanaticism begets nothing but evil. It is especially unfortunate for the Arabs because 3,000-5,000 years ago they were highly advanced. This is evidenced by the Sumerians who, in 3000 B.C., developed the art of writing. Further, they once had the best mathematicians in the world. It is also believed much of the knowledge the ancient Greeks obtained came from the Middle East. What happened? Their religion, that’s what… and furthering their decline has been their religious fanaticism. Religious fanaticism is clearly the worst scourge ever to befall mankind. It is the destroyer of men in all aspects... especially spiritual. A war over Inquisition II?Since inquisitions are highly intrusive, destructive in every sense, the mindset of western civilization simply will not allow a repeat to occur. Not on this planet they won't, no matter the cost. Arabs should recognize the West's resolve in this and also realize it will lead to a war they cannot win. Arab gains can only be accomplished through peaceful intellectual competition. After all, they are potentially capable, in ancient times they had proven it. Of course there is always a red herring... inflaming Arab passions are its monarchies promoting the idea that all their troubles are the fault of the West... as these kings lavish themselves in luxury. Even though World War III has already lifted its ugly head, although in most places having only drawn lines in the sand, the Arabs can easily stop it by simply renouncing violence and adopting a live-and-let-live attitude. They need to see the hellish abyss into which fanaticism is leading them. Suicide bombers inflicting death and injury to innocents is not only lunacy, it is despicably evil. It is time for Arabs to ditch medievalism and incorporate rationalism; it is also the time because the measured patience of the West won’t last. Of course these sentiments would fall on deaf ears, inflamed passions heed only the dogs of war. But hold on! Is the West therefore innocent? Assuredly not, nor is 'political innocence' possible. Has the West taken advantage of the Middle East? Absolutely, especially in the early days of the 20th century highlighted by the British invasion of Iraq in 1917 and The Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 (concerning Kurdistan). While taking advantage of a situation is nothing new among men, a common habit even among Arabs, the attitude of the West regarding national sovereignty has changed in the last 50 years and Muslims should take that into account. Unfortunately that doesn’t undue the damage already done, to Kurdistan for example. American blunderers and Muslim complicityIt doesn't end there however... the Arabs have current reasons for their hatred of the West, more particularly the U.S. Government. In a nutshell, it is over the American Administration's habit of telling others how they should live their lives, conduct their businesses and run their counties. Furthermore, it is interference conspicuously arrogant. The obtrusive nature of this foreign policy is apparent in other parts of the world as well, especially in South America. This is nothing new for U.S. citizens however, for decades we've been told how to live our lives and run our businesses. We can also relate to this arrogance. Such a foreign policy is clearly counterproductive and largely to blame for all of America's current and growing setbacks. Since counterproductive foreign policies equate to bad management, it would therefore follow that the current leadership must surely be blunderers. If however, America's foreign policy was contrived being fully aware of the worldwide animosity it would cause, then the matter is even worse. The only saving grace for the U.S. administration, the only 'positive', is that its cause is 'just' as far as national security is concerned. In light of atomic weapons, national security is no longer just a defensive matter... it now requires an offense, but not a blundering offense. To atone for this, American voters should sack Washington entirely and gut its diplomatic corp. After all, both American political parties stink, stink the same stink, and stink to high heaven. The current occupation of Iraq doesn't contradict America's newly held position on national sovereignty however, nor is it 20th century colonialism, but instead a concern for worldwide security. However unfortunate the realities of human nature have been, and are, however blundering the Americans have been, and are, intellectual competition is a far better than killing innocents for political gain. While not all Muslims are terrorists, their silence serves to condone innocents being murdered in the name of Islam. To condone is to encourage. Where is their outrage? While their outrage directed towards the West is often warranted, nary a whisper is heard about Arab atrocities. One can only conclude Muslims are calculatedly saying to the world... "We're all one-in-the-same". If Muslims were openly critical of themselves and the criminal acts of others in the name of Islam, then this article wouldn't exist… but these things need to be said, said often, and said until it no longer applies. Strange as it may seem, even though Islam deserves bashing, the United States government has been conspicuously silent. Even the media has been silent. They both seem to be of the conviction that individuals should be held responsible, not their religion. While holding religions accountable has been historically true, it seems mankind is slowly outgrowing that kind of thinking, that it is becoming no longer acceptable in civilized societies… otherwise we should wonder who assassinated Abraham Lincoln, was it the Presbyterians? Actually this logic, obviously still existing in greater Arabia, should get America off the hook. It wasn’t America that invaded Iraq... but George W. Bush's religion. So let it be written... in the name of the Sixth Street Baptist Church in Crawford, Texas, George declared a holy war on Islam. He must have had another lapse however... 56 bible-thumping and hallelujah-howling Baptist fanatics from Texas are no match against untold brigades of Muslim fanatics in the Middle East (less those trampled to death in stampedes recently of course). Since the wrongs committed throughout history seem to linger, one always wonders at what point they should be written off… forgotten. Nothing seems to be forgotten though. In light of this, it is surprising Egypt isn’t contemplating war with Iran because the Persians once conquering them 3,000 years ago. Or perhaps Iran should contemplate war with Greece for taking Egypt away in 332 B.C. If that is going back too far, then perhaps the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) who conquered Iraq in the 16th century should be able to keep it. At some point we must forget Kuwait was once carved away from Iraq by the British. Or was this dastardly deed done to the Ottoman Empire? Maybe it was Mesopotamia. At some point we must forget the American southwest was carved out of Mexico. The Indians should forget Mexico took it from them. God only knows who the Indians stole it from. A.O. Kime
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
Although STD LEX is primarily metaphysical in nature, it extensively addresses human-rights issues This website and contents are explained in our Introduction >TOP >HOME |
A.O. Kime articles —AGRICULTURE
|
|
|
for information on
'renting' this article, see 
