Will there ever be a heavy-weight military clash?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If there is another World War, chances are it would come from the Balkans area of Europe, considering that two previous wars have come from there... As for who would be involved it would definitely involve the EU. France might be on the opposite side from Britain and hopefully the rest of the EU going by its recent form in opposing measures like Iraq and its underhand dealings there... Kosovo, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia, Gorgia are all places where there is a lot of tension that could spill over at any time...

No that will not be the cause of a World War. It could very easily break out again into fighitng. I spent 10 months deployed to Kosovo keeping the Serbs from crossing the border and the Albanians and Serbs from killing themselves in Kosovo, they still want at each other throats. There are still hundreds of years of hatred for each other brewing in there hearts.

If they were to start fighting again, all that would happen is NATO an d the EU goes right in and bombs the **** out of them and reoccupies the area. The people there will not fight NATO or the EU once it is over because they are actually happy to have them there. They can go to work and school without fear of mass genocide.

Serbia as well does not have the military capability to deal with NATO or the EU. They would just be beated back just like they were before.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

??? I need an expansion on this. Exactly how large a part did religion play in Russo-Japanese, WWI, Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korean War, and the Vietnam War? Religion is often used by a tool of the power greedy because it causes a rise in emotion, but that does not mean it was the cause. And, just because the opposing side have a different religion, does not mean it is a cause. It is idiotic to think that war would not occur or would not be as violent if religion was not involved. Remember the two biggest monsters of the twentieth centry, Hitler and Stalin, were athetist (although Hitler may have been a occultist). Even the war in Northern Ireland is not religious, other than as a tool of those who hate, but rather a deep dislike based on historical subjugation. No authentic Christian philosophy, Catholic or Protestant, approves violence. Religion does provide a certain separation, or grouping, which people readily use to vent fustrations, bad luck, poor economy, and just about anything. This is a basic fault of people not of religion. If there was no religion, people would find some other reason to blame someone else.

Yeah you are correct but look at all the wars in Europe and the Middle East up through modern times minus the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and on up. They were all based off of Religion.

I should have worded my post differently and said that Religion or idiology has been a major factor in almost every war.

To blame religion for man's violent behavior is bigoted or uninformed.

You are correct but I disagree only because I am tired of so many religous people "preaching" to me to live my life the way they do.

I believe in god but I will worship the way I want to and know one has the right to preach to me or tell me how to live my life. Especially not the Vatican and Christian Coalition lol:You have to be stationed on US Military posts over here in Germany to understand the Christian Coalition)

 

[mkloby]

Yeah you are correct but look at all the wars in Europe and the Middle East up through modern times minus the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and on up. They were all based off of Religion.

I should have worded my post differently and said that Religion or idiology has been a major factor in almost every war.

I am w/ davparlr on this - I am not seeing the connection based on religion. To me, that's just a cliche saying that religion has caused all the wars. Franco-Prussian, US War of Independence, 1812, Barbary pirates, US Civil War, Mexican American war, Spanish-American War, South American wars of indpendence... even going further back to medieval times you have the hundred years war between england and france, and many other wars between Catholic kingdoms were not religiously based. Now the conflict between Christianity and Islam - You got a point w/ that one. I do believe that religion was at times used to excite emotions and whip up war fervor, but I don't agree that it was the cause(often it was imperialism!). I can think of these wars off the very top of my head that religion wasn't the cause; what wars do you believe religion was directly responsible for?

You are correct but I disagree only because I am tired of so many religous people "preaching" to me to live my life the way they do.
I believe in god but I will worship the way I want to and know one has the right to preach to me or tell me how to live my life. Especially not the Vatican and Christian Coalition lol:You have to be stationed on US Military posts over here in Germany to understand the Christian Coalition)

In what way are they different over there? I think they serve a good purpose in the fact that they are one of the groups that represent those of us that don't believe in "sep of Church and state" and extreme secularist thought. They have my support - and I just let the preaching they do roll off the shoulders. Besides - I'm Catholic (and I like the Vatican)!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am w/ davparlr on this - I am not seeing the connection based on religion. To me, that's just a cliche saying that religion has caused all the wars. Franco-Prussian, US War of Independence, 1812, Barbary pirates, US Civil War, Mexican American war, Spanish-American War, South American wars of indpendence... even going further back to medieval times you have the hundred years war between england and france, and many other wars between Catholic kingdoms were not religiously based. Now the conflict between Christianity and Islam - You got a point w/ that one. I do believe that religion was at times used to excite emotions and whip up war fervor, but I don't agree that it was the cause(often it was imperialism!). I can think of these wars off the very top of my head that religion wasn't the cause; what wars do you believe religion was directly responsible for?

Most of the European Wars fought before modern times were between Catholics and Protestants or Christian and Muslim or Catholic and Pagan. The town where my wife is from, Merklingen still hates the town next to it because Merklingen is Catholic and the other town is Protestant. Marriages between the two towns are frowned upon. The Catholic church in my wifes town would not marry us because I am Protestant.

In what way are they different over there? I think they serve a good purpose in the fact that they are one of the groups that represent those of us that don't believe in "sep of Church and state" and extreme secularist thought. They have my support - and I just let the preaching they do roll off the shoulders. Besides - I'm Catholic (and I like the Vatican)!

No I am tired of being told that I listen to the wrong music, carry myself the wrong way when they dont know me. I am a law abiding citizen. I hate no one, I help old ladies across the street and have even saved a few lives. I am tired of being told how to talk, how to walk, how to dress by them.

On the US Military posts in Germany the Christian Coalition is made up of High Ranking Officers wives who think they are god and where there husbands rank. They stick there noses in everything. I remember when I got back from Iraq one of our Pilot's wifes bought beer for all the single soldiers and was going to put in there room. Her reasoning was that if they have beer in the rooms they will not go out and drink and drive (or atleast a better chance of them not doing it because they dont have to go anywhere to get it). The Christian Coalition got involved and told her that she was promoting Alcoholism and got her in a lot of trouble.

As for the Vatican (it is a beautiful place, been there twice and saw the pope.) to me it is the most corrupt "government" on the planet. Just look through history...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh and mkloby the Christian Coalition over here that I am talking about is not actually the group that you are referring to. They dont do the things that you are talking about and stand for religion and state together. It is just the term that I call these highly religous officers wives.

 

[mkloby]

As for the Vatican (it is a beautiful place, been there twice and saw the pope.) to me it is the most corrupt "government" on the planet. Just look through history...

Perhaps man's flawed nature has much to do with this? I don't believe you can say the Holy See is more corrupt than other states and empires that have existed. I wouldn't call Karol Wojtyla corrupt... Perhaps if not for the Catholic chuch - europe have been Muslim for hundreds of years already.

 

[plan_D]

While a lot of wars are not based off religion, mkloby, you're missing the point that many of those wars needed the acceptance of the Pope when two Catholic's fought. Had the Pope demanded a stop; it would have stopped.

Any study of religion shows us the religion itself could be considered peaceful; I guess. Depending on how you read the holy texts - after all, most religions demand death of those opposing the true God or gods. You never know which religion is right anyway, so what difference does that make?
The point is mankind uses the "peaceful" texts to demand death upon enemies. God (real or not) may demand peace and to spill blood may be a sin, but find peace with God before doing it and you'll be forgiven.

The Catholic Church has almost always been corrupt - and any denial of that is a denial of history. Throught the Middle Ages the Catholic Church wallowed in gold as it was a state upon itself that ruled all others with the threat of hell. It called men to arms to wage war against Islam for its own sake of plunder.

I won't blame religion for all wars. I don't have anything against the existance of religion. But when religion becomes an integral part of politics and war then I have something against it.
As much as any religious folk want to try and prove the bible is telling the truth, or God is real, I don't believe a single word of it. And I may burn in Hell or whatever - but it's my right to believe what I want. And if I'm fighting a war, I wouldn't use my religion as an excuse for killing. As religion so often is. To call religion peaceful is denying the fact that mankind made religion, and mankind is violent. Even when religion isn't the driving force - it's always a good weapon.

And what makes you assume the Catholic Church prevented Muslim expansion into Europe, mkloby? The Greeks stopped the Persian expansion into Europe without any knowledge or care for what was to become Christianity. The banner of the cross wasn't the only thing that made Europe unite in times of trouble.

 

[mkloby]

While a lot of wars are not based off religion, mkloby, you're missing the point that many of those wars needed the acceptance of the Pope when two Catholic's fought. Had the Pope demanded a stop; it would have stopped.

Marc - I didn't miss the point. I understand the argument completely, but I challenge the validity of the assertion that religion is the base cause for many wars. I didn't claim the Vatican was flawless, everything that involves human nature will be subject to such imperfections.

Any study of religion shows us the religion itself could be considered peaceful; I guess. Depending on how you read the holy texts - after all, most religions demand death of those opposing the true God or gods. You never know which religion is right anyway, so what difference does that make?
The point is mankind uses the "peaceful" texts to demand death upon enemies. God (real or not) may demand peace and to spill blood may be a sin, but find peace with God before doing it and you'll be forgiven.

Again, flawed human nature - not religion itself causing a twisting of peaceful teachings.

The Catholic Church has almost always been corrupt - and any denial of that is a denial of history. Throught the Middle Ages the Catholic Church wallowed in gold as it was a state upon itself that ruled all others with the threat of hell. It called men to arms to wage war against Islam for its own sake of plunder.

One problem I have with "history" is that much of it is written by those that hate the Catholic church. I assume you are referring to the Crusades. These campaigns were counterattacks against the Islamic invasion of Christian lands - they were not offensive in nature. The Crusades might be the most twisted historical event, distorted by those that despise the Catholic Church to make it look evil. You forget that the poor muslims invaded in western europe into France as early as 732 defeated finally by Charles Martel at Tours, and in eastern europe advanced into central europe and laid siege to Vienna twice.

However - the plunder by Catholics of the Byzantines, and factional Christian infighting between ORthodox and Catholic was truly sad...

I won't blame religion for all wars. I don't have anything against the existance of religion. But when religion becomes an integral part of politics and war then I have something against it.
As much as any religious folk want to try and prove the bible is telling the truth, or God is real, I don't believe a single word of it. And I may burn in Hell or whatever - but it's my right to believe what I want. And if I'm fighting a war, I wouldn't use my religion as an excuse for killing. As religion so often is. To call religion peaceful is denying the fact that mankind made religion, and mankind is violent. Even when religion isn't the driving force - it's always a good weapon.

You're right - you do have that right. But I also have the right to believe and fight for the integration of Church and state!

And what makes you assume the Catholic Church prevented Muslim expansion into Europe, mkloby? The Greeks stopped the Persian expansion into Europe without any knowledge or care for what was to become Christianity. The banner of the cross wasn't the only thing that made Europe unite in times of trouble.

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between Persians and Muslims - in fact the persian lands were a prime target of growing Muslim power throughout the middle ages as well. And the persian expansion you are talking about took place over a thousand years prior to that, and Islam didn't exist

I will say that without ANY christian coordination vice Islamic expansionism, the history of Europe may have turned out to be quite different. In addition to the Crusades, take the 2nd siege vienna in 1683 (i think) in which Polish king jan sobieski and the heavy cav joined the battle under the banner of Catholicism to destroyed the Turkish forces. Never again would the Turks play such an important and influential role in European politics.

 

[plan_D]

Twice my IE has crashed when trying to post here.

I'll make this short;

I wasn't assaulting the Crusades. I'm aware of the Muslim expansion across North Africa and into Iberia. The continued expansion being halted then repulsed by Charles Martel in Gaul. His victory at Poitiers (Tours) blunted the sword of the Muslim world and his recapture of Avingon in 737 AD pushed them back beyond any capture of Europe in the Middle Ages.

The fourth Crusade was sent by the Papacy for plunder, I believe. Which I have nothing against but it's a point nevertheless that the Catholic Church liked its gold and power a little too much.

The point of Greece was a quick point of Greek City States uniting without religion being a banner. This was against a force they knew was to be reckoned with, and was a great danger.
The similar happened in 1241 when the Catholic Poles, Germans, Teutonic and Templar knights joined to fight the Mongols at Liegnitz. While Catholic, they didn't need the Vatican to tell them to join - they recognised the large threat and joined.

Sorry for the confusion, I'm aware the Persian Empire was not Islamic. I admit I don't know the name for their religion though.

Any mention of Classical - Medieval History sees no assault from me, it's history and all actions were products of their age. I won't judge anything from history. If it seems so I'm wording it all wrong.

 

[mkloby]

Sorry about your computer issues

I think ancient Persians were Zoroasters, but I know practically nothing of this. I'm not even sure of the timeframe of the religion. I did have a friend from India in college, who was persian, and was a Zoroaster.

Good points - King Jan Sobieski, after smashing the Turks at Vienna, is quoted to have said "to proceed to the Holy War, and with God's help to give back the old freedom to besieged Vienna, and thereby help wavering Christendom."

Templars, Teutonic Order, Knights Santiago, all Orders of Knighthood granted by the Papacy! I didn't mean the Papacy was the puppetmaster - but Catholic Europe banned together to fight off Muslims and Mongols - later turned muslim on their own accord - which is what you said!

Interesting discussion!

 

[plan_D]

Certainly I'm not denying that Catholicism was a driving force in a lot of European empires joining arms to fight off threats. There were circumstances when the Cross was the sole banner to which Europe defended its lands, but I don't think it would have been needed.

As the Greek states proved, to me at least, that people of a similar position can band together just to fight a common evil. They did not need religion to back their cause, but all saw the common threat.
I see that Europe could have banded together against massive threats just like the Greeks did without religion for their cause. I can't prove it, of course, but I believe it would have happened.

The Knights Templar and Teutonic Order were granted by the Papacy. And the Templar were burned for heresy!

In 1241, while those Catholics at Liegnitz did band together. Frederick II found no need to aid a wavering Christendom as he was clearly marching on Rome to wreck the Papacy. If the Mongols had continued marching across Europe, I don't see the Holy Roman Empire turning around to gather with Catholic brethren to stop the invasion. I see Europe as a collection of powers; where most gatherings were for their own purpose, not that of the Catholic church.
The third Crusade, for example, saw Italy and Austria turn back because they were disillusioned with the English claim to the greatest glory. In the name of Christ I would expect them to carry on anyway - but it obviously didn't suit their purpose.

 

[Udet]

Winston the Liar in a speech in the House of Commons on May 1940, brought up issues such as "God" and "survival of Christian civilization", when referring to the fights to come against Germany (while at the same time Great Britain was exchanging kisses with someone who would more than guarantee the contiunation of Christian civilization: Smiley Dzhugazhvili).

Not that i want to suggest WWII was a religious sort of conflict, but any nation whose army just got smashed and surpassed on the battlefield will have its rulers resorting to all kinds of tricks -and possibly jokes- still left in the basement in order to boost the morale of the people.

 

[mkloby]

The Knights Templar and Teutonic Order were granted by the Papacy. And the Templar were burned for heresy!

I believe only 3 Templars (Grandmaster and 2 subordinates)were charged with heresey by the Papacy - the Templars as an organization were smashed by the French king! More support should have been forthcoming by the Papacy for the Templars - a position which the Church has recognized.

 

[plan_D]

Hundreds of Knights Templar were burnt and tortured for heresy in France. In England they were charged but not all found guilty, and only in Portugal were the Knights Templar safe from the French King and Pope Clement V. It was the Pope that officially dissolved the Order of the Templar, the French Louis IV pressurised the Papacy into doing so.

If the Papacy was true in its religious beliefs it would have been the French King that would have been excommunicated; not the Templar. But because the Pope was French, he had to help his French brethren.

 

[mkloby]

Hundreds of Knights Templar were burnt and tortured for heresy in France. In England they were charged but not all found guilty, and only in Portugal were the Knights Templar safe from the French King and Pope Clement V. It was the Pope that officially dissolved the Order of the Templar, the French Louis IV pressurised the Papacy into doing so.

If the Papacy was true in its religious beliefs it would have been the French King that would have been excommunicated; not the Templar. But because the Pope was French, he had to help his French brethren.

I understand your point completely. You're right the Pope did did not support the Knights as they should have, which is a position recognised by the Church. The Order was cleared as not being heretical! Knights executed by French royal authorities, however, is far different from knights executed by the Papacy! Many of the Templars were absorbed by other Orders of Knighthood. It's undeniable that the end of the Order of the Knights of the Temple was due solely to political reasons.

 

[plan_D]

I certainly wouldn't deny that the destruction of the Knights Templar was political. The Church had a large part in its destruction though. They could have stopped the French; and Louis should have been exocommunciated. But as all through the Middle-Ages those who had their Pope in charge had a free-hand to do as they may.

The Papacy was a large political player, more than a centre of Christendom. The destruction of the Templar shows it. I wasn't aware that the Papacy cleared the Templar Knights of Heresy though - while I was aware a lot went to the Knights of St.John.

 

[HealzDevo]

Although even in those wars, one side or the other, both even may try to claim that God is on their side. Name a war where one side or the other hasn't tried to evoke God as being on their side... May be different from a totally religious motivation but even still, you get the picture...

 

[mkloby]

I certainly wouldn't deny that the destruction of the Knights Templar was political. The Church had a large part in its destruction though. They could have stopped the French; and Louis should have been exocommunciated. But as all through the Middle-Ages those who had their Pope in charge had a free-hand to do as they may.

The Papacy was a large political player, more than a centre of Christendom. The destruction of the Templar shows it. I wasn't aware that the Papacy cleared the Templar Knights of Heresy though - while I was aware a lot went to the Knights of St.John.

Yup - and the Aragonese Order of Montesa... I agree that the Church should have supported the Templars - they did much in the service of the Church...