A century from now, will history books (or links) talk about World War III as the summarizing title for the conflicts of our age, as the First World War was?
If so - how ironic is it that the spread of a Middle Eastern conflict into the West should be what justifies the title?
Especially considering the role the reverse played in leading to where we stand now?
So tell me - what's the difference between being a strong nation or history's actor if in the long game, we're simply stirring the pot or carrying on the same play? That's not strength, that's short-sightedness.
Post a Comment