Commentary

Stephens: ‘Make War Great Again’?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by Lauston Stephens

Suppose there was an enemy of humanity that was not from this planet, and they wanted as many humans as possible to be killed in war. They cannot do this themselves except as they can incite us to go to war against one another. 

Two of their biggest successes were, of course, World War One and World War Two. The first “achieved” an estimated fifteen to twenty-two million combat deaths in just over four years.  In addition to that, the 1918 flu pandemic was partly spread by troops returning to their home countries. That resulted in an estimated 25 million deaths in about three years. In only six years, the Second World War “achieved” an estimated forty to fifty million deaths if you combine the holocaust and ensuing famines along with combat casualties. 

According to The Polynational War Memorial (https://war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp), only an estimated 13,315,801 combat deaths have occurred in the eighty years since World War Two. Less than fourteen million in eighty years? 

The “war to end all wars” was initially called the Great War because it involved so many countries. How would an enemy of humanity work to make war “great” again? 

“The M-A-I-N acronym – militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism – is often used to analyze the war, and each of these reasons is cited to be the 4 main causes of World War One.” (https://www.historyhit.com/the-4-m-a-i-n-causes-of-world-war-one/). 

World War One set the stage for World War Two. The victors placed such a financial burden on the Weimar Republic of Germany that hyperinflation provided fertile soil for the rise of a demagogue. Occupation by a foreign power did the same in Italy. The European dismissal of Japan turned them away from the Allies and toward the Axis powers. All three Axis powers developed expansionist goals. That is why they started and spread war. 

“Czar” Vladimir Putin has publicly compared himself to Czar Peter the Great. Under Peter, much of Ukraine was part of Russia. Putin sees his efforts not as reestablishing the Soviet Union as some suppose but as making Russia “great” again.  

While walking from one gate to another in the Shanghai airport a few years ago, I noticed signs directing people heading to domestic flights and signs for international flights, as well as Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. The government does not regard those three destinations as genuinely international. (Hong Kong and Macao are “special administrative districts.”) 

For at least some of its nearly 300-year history, the Qing dynasty included Tibet, Outer Mongolia, Macao, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. “Emperor” Xi Jinping is working to make China “great” again. 

Some Muslims hold to a doctrine that once land has been under Islamic rule, faithful Muslims must strive to return that land to Islamic rule. Of course, this includes ruling and renaming Israel. The Ayatollahs in Iran want to make Islam “great” again.

The United States operated the Panama Canal from 1914, when we finished it, until 1999. “King” Donald’s talk of taking it back seems to be one step in his vision of making America “great” again.  

Panama seceded from Colombia in 1903 with help from the United States, which wanted to expedite the canal’s construction. Taiwan became independent from mainland China in 1912 after the end of the Qing dynasty. Ukraine became a separate nation in 1918 when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar. Israel became a nation-state in 1948. Are these all to become mere twentieth century anomalies? 

The aspirations to make Russia, China, and Islam “great” again are being pushed toward one another by economic sanctions levied primarily by the United States. 

BRICS is an intergovernmental organization consisting of ten countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. It is considered to be a counterpart and alternative to the G7 bloc of the world’s largest economies and combined represent nearly half of the world’s population. – Wikipedia. 

Militarism, alliances, imperialism, nationalism, and expansionist goals are all in abundance to “make war great again.” Hypersonic missiles, cyber-attacks, and electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) will redefine “blitzkrieg.” Have we been played? Are we okay with this? What can we do about it? There is global repentance. 

“What is the cause of wars and fighting among you? is it not in your desires which are at  war in your bodies? You are burning with desire, and have not your desire, so you put men to death; you are full of envy, and you are not able to get your desire, so you are fighting and making war…” -James 4:1-2 BBE.


Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 replies »

  1. This person could have been the speech writer for Harris, ” word salad ” seems to be the M.O here.

  2. Good article! It reminds me of all these nihilist Hamas supporters protesting in the West. They are ignorant of Islam and its hatred of Jews and Christians. And I doubt very much if these far-left types know anything about China’s murderous absorption of Tibet. China has occupied Tibet since 1951. It is estimated that over one million Tibetans have been executed, and thousands of others tortured, imprisoned and starved.

  3. The Biden admistration set the world on fire.
    Obama bombed Libya into chaos and slave markets, and used enough drones to please his Chicago General Dynamics king maker, even for extrajudicial executions of US citizens.

    How many new wars did the first Trump administration enter? Zero.

    Keep projecting and pontificating. It’s fun to watch.

    • Quoting Jeff Childers (released at 11AM today):

      “It’s worth noting that Trump’s strategy is the exact opposite of how Biden and previous U.S. administrations handled foreign policy. Instead of launching drone strikes, deploying massive (and ineffective) sanctions, and dumping billions into unwinnable proxy wars, Trump is using cheap rhetorical and inexpensive symbolic dominance—which are less costly, less risky, and —so far— much more effective.”