Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I'm honestly not convinced it would either, but I think it *could* - it wouldn't be the first time in history a country that didn't seem headed for war 'went mad together' (to borrow a B5 quote) when it came to it. My point is the uncertainty.
I am reminded that the Romans started a war with a recent ally which would last 23 years, cost a couple hundred thousand lives, break Syracuse & redefine the balance of power in the Western Med...over the autonomy of small town occupied by an even smaller band of mercenaries.
And over no great political feeling either - the Senate split on the question and so the issue went to a vote of the assembly without Senate instruction; a vote of 'eh, might as well, I guess.'
There’s a specific projection of European public opinion in that thread. It runs counter to: Bosnia/Rwanda/Syria—all of which saw participation by NATO members. Plus the Germans already got their Good War—AFGHow did that turn out? There no Habermas Legion waiting in the wings….
Which war is that?
First Punic War (264-241), fought initially to defend the autonomy of the Mamertines, a band of Italian mercenaries who had seized control of Messana.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
, especially the reminder that the use of force (in this case contemplating Russian military action in Ukraine) can cause lots of unpredictable changes in all sorts of impacted countries.
