The George Blog – To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war & Comments

Return to Recent Topics
Instructions Book 5 for Design No. 165 posted in Design
Re-caulking Dazy posted in The Odd Word
Addition/Extension posted in The Odd Word
Deben 4-Tonner posted in Design
Deben 4¾-Tonner – New Design posted in Design
Sapphire 27 posted in Design
Server Problems posted in News
A sad day for the UK posted in The Odd Word
Traditional Clinker Plans for Design 073 now available. posted in Design
RealCADD posted in The Odd Word
Design (10 most recent)
The Odd Word (10 most recent)
News (10 most recent)
Recipes (10 most recent)
Design (Archives)
The Odd Word (Archives)
News (Archives)
Recipes (Archives)
Favourite Blogs & Sites
The British Humanist Association
Richard Dawkins
The Freethinker
Mercy For Animals

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war

So said the great wartime leader Winston Churchill.

The same sentiments are being echoed – more than echoed in fact – by President Barrack Obama.

Criticism from the conservative right accuses him of "all words - no substance".

Surely the words are the substance. Wars and conflicts always have to end with words eventually in the form of agreements, treaties or pacts. Isn't it better to get to the inevitable end without the intervening war if at all possible?

During the latter part of the 20th Century and this Century the USA has tended to see war as an early option – possibly because it suffered little devastation of territory or serious civilian casualties in either of the two world wars. Its friends and allies in Europe with their first-hand experience of the terrible devastation that war wreaks on land, property and people have been substantially less keen, seeing war largely as a last option when all else has failed.

As with Churchill, a nation has found the right person at a critical time; Americans have had the courage to elect Barrack Obama. Finally we have someone of vision, intelligence and integrity who will speak plainly and act fairly. He deserves our wholehearted support. Pay no attention to the whingeing right.


Sir your comments about a lack of civilian casualties in the USofA. is offensive.
911 was an act of war by a group of Muslim terrorists. Who will have none of your words or mine. I believe Churchill would be proud of the actions of his cousins across the pond.
Date posted: Monday, 06 Jul 2009 | posted by: johnnyemc

Well of course 9/11 was terrible -- but remember that, as a proportion of the its population Britain lost more civilian casualties to the IRA than the US did at 9/11 (and a fair number of the 9/11 casualties were UK citizens).

The fact remains that the US did not suffer many civilian casualties in the WWII and the attitude of the US to war IS different from its European friends and allies.

I don't think there is anything offensive about analyzing why this should be.

Date posted: Thursday, 09 Jul 2009 | posted by: debenriver

Post a comment

You need to Login to post a comment. If you are not a member you can Register.