I was unaware that a country has mentioned in its constitution that its army does not have the right to be on the offensive, to attack countries and the army cannot be used to settle international disputes.
The question that arises now is which country has adopted such tight regulations for its army. Definitely not the US, who are happy to send their boys to war so the weapon manufacturers can have a continuous supply, as long as the wars make sure that there is demand.And the US has made sure that has happened. For the last decade at least, the US has made sure that there is no dearth in the demand of weapons and this has kept their sponsors happy.
It could be a country of the EU. Post World War 2 they have had no military engagements except for the Yugoslav war, Britain's love for Falkland islands leading a short term war and Russia's wars with neighbors/ former republics Chechenya and Georgia. Definitely not Africa, where peace is a crime and slaughter, ethnic cleansing and multiple crimes against humanity are the norm, except for the Mediterranean countries and South Africa. In Asia the middle East, thanks to Iran's rhetorics against Israel and Israel always banking on big daddy USA, (not to mention the emotional blackmail they do by referring to them as survivors of the holocaust, while all they do is insult the memory of those who perished in it), and the Arab uprising and Syria committing mass murders, none of these countries would know how to use an army in times of peace. India, which only uses army in peace time no matter how much its neighbors violate their boundaries and no matter how many times their neighbors stab them in the back, does qualify as the country which could have adopted the afore mentioned policy. Except that it unleashes its army on people of Kashmir and North East states while it in reality it should have the guts to face China and Pakistan.
Japan, on e of the Axis powers which committed mass atrocities against the Chinese and other neighboring countries during the Second World War before being forced to surrender under the threat of the atom bomb, is the country which forbids its army for war. The army is used for peace time civilian rehabilitation purposes and this could not have been more visible that after the earthquake last year, when you had soldiers all over the devastated areas trying to bring a sense of order in time of chaos. After the Second World War, till date, Japan has not participated in any form of military aggression and the laws formed make sure that it cant happen. They must be commended on their turnaround on use of military, from being as devastating as in Pearl Harbor, to as constructive as after earth quake and rehabilitation.
We pray that other countries have the courage, guts and most importantly BALLS to follow Japan's example and try to make better and peaceful use of military and try to make the world a safer place to live, than like The Americans, Europeans and people of Middle East and Africa, who cant seem to think of other uses of military except for slaughter of civilians.
The question that arises now is which country has adopted such tight regulations for its army. Definitely not the US, who are happy to send their boys to war so the weapon manufacturers can have a continuous supply, as long as the wars make sure that there is demand.And the US has made sure that has happened. For the last decade at least, the US has made sure that there is no dearth in the demand of weapons and this has kept their sponsors happy.
It could be a country of the EU. Post World War 2 they have had no military engagements except for the Yugoslav war, Britain's love for Falkland islands leading a short term war and Russia's wars with neighbors/ former republics Chechenya and Georgia. Definitely not Africa, where peace is a crime and slaughter, ethnic cleansing and multiple crimes against humanity are the norm, except for the Mediterranean countries and South Africa. In Asia the middle East, thanks to Iran's rhetorics against Israel and Israel always banking on big daddy USA, (not to mention the emotional blackmail they do by referring to them as survivors of the holocaust, while all they do is insult the memory of those who perished in it), and the Arab uprising and Syria committing mass murders, none of these countries would know how to use an army in times of peace. India, which only uses army in peace time no matter how much its neighbors violate their boundaries and no matter how many times their neighbors stab them in the back, does qualify as the country which could have adopted the afore mentioned policy. Except that it unleashes its army on people of Kashmir and North East states while it in reality it should have the guts to face China and Pakistan.
Japan, on e of the Axis powers which committed mass atrocities against the Chinese and other neighboring countries during the Second World War before being forced to surrender under the threat of the atom bomb, is the country which forbids its army for war. The army is used for peace time civilian rehabilitation purposes and this could not have been more visible that after the earthquake last year, when you had soldiers all over the devastated areas trying to bring a sense of order in time of chaos. After the Second World War, till date, Japan has not participated in any form of military aggression and the laws formed make sure that it cant happen. They must be commended on their turnaround on use of military, from being as devastating as in Pearl Harbor, to as constructive as after earth quake and rehabilitation.
We pray that other countries have the courage, guts and most importantly BALLS to follow Japan's example and try to make better and peaceful use of military and try to make the world a safer place to live, than like The Americans, Europeans and people of Middle East and Africa, who cant seem to think of other uses of military except for slaughter of civilians.
No comments:
Post a Comment