politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
But ethically better then war, or letting them harm the vulnerable
Bet the dickheads that shot Ferdinand thought the same.
Nobody believes they're on the wrong side of history. But after all, history is written by the victors.
Is that why WW1 is generally pretty unbiased? Nobody actually fucking won in that war. We must replicate this across all wars for reasons of historical posterity.
Turks in practice won. They lost parts of their empire they would be unable to control for long anyway. They murdered everyone they didn't like in the parts they liked and had their sovereignty over those recognized by "civilized" countries. And the world after that war made them useful for everyone else.
Japan, well, wasn't too happy with its share in the outcome of WWI, but clearly won.
Okay so we have two out how many countries. But fair point.
The dickhead that did it was so drunk that he probably thought he was shooting the FNAF robot.
You are not that naive to think it's his murder that caused WWI, yes? It's well known that all sides had been preparing for world war.
Serbia accepted all parts of the AH ultimatum, except for one, which was a complete violation of sovereignty.
There were no significant negotiations over this, because that ultimatum was not intended to be accepted.
Germany and Russia and France and Italy all mobilized without all these things we hear today about new red lines and negotiations and compromises in Ukraine and elsewhere. Humans have not changed, it's just that war was certain to happen. The archduke's murder was not, but it was very convenient since he was a rather peacemaking figure.
Nothing more immediately tempts me to dismiss a comment than one attempting to start with a passive insult. From a 1 day old account, none the less. I’ll ignore my better sense and plow on.
I guess I’ll also ignore the pages of articles pointing to it as the “immediate cause” of the war.
Guess I’ll not point out the all geopolitical tension you mentioned being be the “powder keg” that Ferdinand’s assassination ignited, either.
My comment was specific enough, go fuck yourself.
EDIT: Also using tired metaphors like "powder keg" in the context of WWI does the opposite of making your argument stronger. Argumentation is about logic, not about conforming to style. You might also want to lose that smug tone, it's equivalent to spending your opponent's goodwill on something unconnected to the subject. You might call the situation where everybody wants war a "powder keg", yes, but that doesn't really matter, war already was in the air for a few years before the assassination. In newspapers, in diplomacy, in preparations for their own grand victory by all big powers. Since Balkan wars (Ottomans losing trust in British world order), Bosnia and Herzegovina (South Slavs realizing they are food), Russo-Japanese war (ruining Russian friendship with Germany and Austria).
Why do I even bother trying and failing at being witty when the jokes write themselves.
It wasn't an insult. You're the person who sees any disagreement as a critique of their nonexistent intellectual authority, apparently.
Also I didn't miss any implications. FF's assassination couldn't by itself prepare troops and railroads for close war. That it was used as a formal cause means nothing. ~~In 1870 France declared war on Prussia with the formal reason of being insulted~~ (EDIT: this is false, they made some demands and such, dunno where I got this from). Tail doesn't wag the dog.
A sardonic, “you can’t be that silly” passes muster, and is semantics either way.
I caught your edit and I gotta ask, are you Serbian? I assumed you were just looking for an argument given the tone of your replies but the edit made me think otherwise. You surely can’t have interpreted my initial comments as blaming Serbia (or even Black Hand necessarily) for starting the war right? Because that is not what I was doing.
No, not Serbian, but I'm nervous about possible misinterpretations of such events, as today these may cause justifying "smaller" crimes to avoid some supposed bigger catastrophe. As that would happen right before WWII.
My first comment was just that there's usually no single cause of war, and if FF's murder and Serbia rejecting one part of the ultimatum were that, then the war would last for a few months after which everyone would apologize to each other and go lick their wounds.