The more I've delved deeper into History the more I realize how different it could have been if it weren't for a handful of people or a few decisions gone the other way.
We can't even comprehend the alternate flow of history and the alternatives in sight. We currently see our world and some of its values as the best they are - like Democracy and freedom of speech - yet the same could have been said in the past. This here period of ours is not the end of the line yet so many people say this is the generation when the rapture happens.
It won't happen for the same reason why it didn't happen in the past.
With that I've been comparing the United Nations and today's perceived status-quo. What is the different between that and the congress of Vienna when the four world powers (and the other victors) decided the fate of France and the world, thus establishing and keeping the status quo? What is the difference between these then Monarchies and today's great Democracies and a handful of Autocratic regimes? Is it Nationalism, or another sense of the self? Is it the rule of the mob? What prevents us from creating another ideal for which we are to fight and change the borders of today? Furthermore, with what right does the UN create a status-quo? Wasn't WW1 the war to end all wars?
I would like to ask your opinion about the way History could have been changed so drastically, with the USA looking like this [http://i.imgur.com/wdXp3.jpg] or crumbling into a failed state, and how the status-quo we perceive today is only the musing of the winning powers after WW2, no different than the Congress of Vienna or Treaty of Versailles (Post WW1).
We can't even comprehend the alternate flow of history and the alternatives in sight. We currently see our world and some of its values as the best they are - like Democracy and freedom of speech - yet the same could have been said in the past. This here period of ours is not the end of the line yet so many people say this is the generation when the rapture happens.
It won't happen for the same reason why it didn't happen in the past.
With that I've been comparing the United Nations and today's perceived status-quo. What is the different between that and the congress of Vienna when the four world powers (and the other victors) decided the fate of France and the world, thus establishing and keeping the status quo? What is the difference between these then Monarchies and today's great Democracies and a handful of Autocratic regimes? Is it Nationalism, or another sense of the self? Is it the rule of the mob? What prevents us from creating another ideal for which we are to fight and change the borders of today? Furthermore, with what right does the UN create a status-quo? Wasn't WW1 the war to end all wars?
I would like to ask your opinion about the way History could have been changed so drastically, with the USA looking like this [http://i.imgur.com/wdXp3.jpg] or crumbling into a failed state, and how the status-quo we perceive today is only the musing of the winning powers after WW2, no different than the Congress of Vienna or Treaty of Versailles (Post WW1).
