Hamas Attacks Israel

[Madner Kami]

Also it seems rather clear that Austria and Germany were the belligerents of the war.

Exclusively? No. Everyone was.

No.

I'm not presuming that colonial agendas weren't influential on matters, but by terms of international sovereignty and terms of warfare, there is clearly an ambitious side.

By which accounts precisely do you find the Entente to be contemptible by?

You're shitting me, right? If there's anyone singularly responsible for the war, it's Austria, dreaming of imperial ambition and acting like the delusional spoiled brat it was.
You got Germany giving them a carte blanche and going along with it, despite the Emperor literally being flabberghasted why the fuck Austria would keep pushing, when Serbia basically agreed to all austrian demands (mostly because he was on vacation when the decission was made and didn't want to walk back on his stupid promises, despite knowing they were stupid and completely misreading everyone else in Europe).
You got Russia walking into it, because they wanted to undo the perception of incompetence, created by the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and their emperor being a completely incompetent fuckwit with an inferiority complex (he didn't just share the looks with the german emperor evidently), who wanted to prove himself because his entire nation saw him as weak and despite his advisors telling him to knock it the fuck off.
You got Italy being opportunistic twits who betrayed their allies for the vague promise of some austrian posessions that weren't austrian in the first place.
You got France wanting revenge for the defeat in the war of 1870/71 and Bismarck running circles around them diplomatically for 30 years (for the good of both Germany and Europe at large in fact, even if not necessarily by intend).
And you have the UK, which, when asked by Germany to find an agreement in the arms race answered with: "Go fuck yourself! We'll go to war alongside any nation that declares war on you, even if they are the agressors and you are just defending yourself!", just a few years prior and following on that promise.

Everyone east of the Rhine is responsible for the war on the grounds of trying to compensate for an inferiority complex. Everyone west of the Rhine is responsible, because they were war-mongering, colonial arseholes. Only Belgium was a special case, because they didn't want to be involved. But, frankly, that country kinda deserved some karmic misery after what they did in the Congo. Noone in that entire war walked into it, because it was the "right thing to do". There's not a single major player that is not directly at fault, because everyone set each other up.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Also it seems rather clear that Austria and Germany were the belligerents of the war.

Exclusively? No. Everyone was.

No.

I'm not presuming that colonial agendas weren't influential on matters, but by terms of international sovereignty and terms of warfare, there is clearly an ambitious side.

By which accounts precisely do you find the Entente to be contemptible by?

You're shitting me, right? If there's anyone singularly responsible for the war, it's Austria, dreaming of imperial ambition and acting like the delusional spoiled brat it was.
You got Germany giving them a carte blanche and going along with it, despite the Emperor literally being flabberghasted why the fuck Austria would keep pushing, when Serbia basically agreed to all austrian demands (mostly because he was on vacation when the decission was made and didn't want to walk back on his stupid promises, despite knowing they were stupid and completely misreading everyone else in Europe).
You got Russia walking into it, because they wanted to undo the perception of incompetence, created by the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and their emperor being a completely incompetent fuckwit with an inferiority complex (he didn't just share the looks with the german emperor evidently), who wanted to prove himself because his entire nation saw him as weak and despite his advisors telling him to knock it the fuck off.
You got Italy being opportunistic twits who betrayed their allies for the vague promise of some austrian posessions that weren't austrian in the first place.
You got France wanting revenge for the defeat in the war of 1870/71 and Bismarck running circles around them diplomatically for 30 years (for the good of both Germany and Europe at large in fact, even if not necessarily by intend).
And you have the UK, which, when asked by Germany to find an agreement in the arms race answered with: "Go fuck yourself! We'll go to war alongside any nation that declares war on you, even if they are the agressors and you are just defending yourself!", just a few years prior and following on that promise.

Everyone east of the Rhine is responsible for the war on the grounds of trying to compensate for an inferiority complex. Everyone west of the Rhine is responsible, because they were war-mongering, colonial arseholes. Only Belgium was a special case, because they didn't want to be involved. But, frankly, that country kinda deserved some karmic misery after what they did in the Congo. Noone in that entire war walked into it, because it was the "right thing to do". There's not a single major player that is not directly at fault, because everyone set each other up.

I see. You're going the "all war is bad" argument and that any use of the military is forbidden unless in defense. Yes, it's fairly easy to make a case that the loss of life should be a last resort when considering policy. Fair point.

Anyways, there's clearly an aggressive side of the war by terms of conflict, even after considering the internal reasons of each country.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The initiative to intervene in a conflict is not without longstanding controversy. One of the more simmering examples that has stood out to me was Clinton's pacifism during Rwanda.

“The failure to try to stop Rwanda's tragedies became one of the greatest regrets of my presidency” (Clinton 2004, 593).

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Shit's bad when Dril weighs in directly:
https://twitter.com/dril/status/1739071688321778126

[Madner Kami]

I see. You're going the "all war is bad" argument and that any use of the military is forbidden unless in defense. Yes, it's fairly easy to make a case that the loss of life should be a last resort when considering policy. Fair point.

Anyways, there's clearly an aggressive side of the war by terms of conflict, even after considering the internal reasons of each country.

Nothing of what you wrote there, can be derived from what I wrote. I'm sincerely not clear on what you are reading or answering to at times.

At no point in my post, am I making any comment about whether there can be such a thing as a rightful "good" war or not. In fact, if you paid any attention to my presence on this forum at all, you should be very aware of the fact that I support Ukraine fighting back and actually embrace the rest of the world supporting them, resenting the fact that we can't intervene directly even. That alone should give you an idea about how wrong you were in your assumption there.
But rolling back to World War 1, which I was specifically answering and refering to in above's post, yes, not a single side involved in that affair is without blame or direct responsibility. World War 1 was bad, no matter how you turn it:

• Serbian terrorists murdered the only man in the Austrian leadership, who would have actually helped them, once he would've gotten into power. Instead their actions directly caused revanchist action from Austria and the hardline Emperor they wanted to get away from.
• Russia didn't want to defend Serbia. Russia wanted to 1) Prove they're still a big power and not a complete joke and 2) Wanted to retain or rather expand their hegemony over the Balkans and Slavs at large and 3) Stick it to the (austrian) man, their main competitor on the Balkans. They're not the good guys protecting a small country from a large overbearing bully. They're the bullies themselves, just wearing a different colour. Seriously, read about Panslavism.
• The UK. I wasn't joking or even really paraphrasing. Their stated goal was to join in on any war against Germany, no matter the cause, no matter the reason, no matter who started it. They wanted to kick Germany down a notch or five, for industrial and colonial reasons and their only goal was, to not having to do it alone (because they knew they couldn't beat the German Empire in a land-war) or, argueably, even without doing it themselves. They ain't the good guys, even if their effective reason to enter the war was Germany occupying Belgium. They were "rules-lawyering", for lack of a better word and if we want to do that ourselves: Germany only attacked Belgium because France declared war on Germany. Who's in the wrong here? Everyfuckingbody.
• France. Being a shitshow ever since the sun-king. They destroyed the First German Empire via Napoleon and even through the post-napoleonic reconstruction, somehow managed to retain german-speaking territories, which they partially aquired under Louis the XIII and XIV already. I condemn Bismarck or, rather, Moltke and Wilhelm I for insisting on re-annexing Elsaß-Lothringen er I mean Alsac-Lorraine (Bismarck prefered ceeding these territories to Switzerland, to keep a neutral buffer-state in between France and Germany, but Switzerland declined), but you can't entirely argue against the reason behind the annexation either, especially considering how the area wanted to remain an indipendent eepublic in the wake of the german collapse in 1918, but was promptly annexed and incorporated into France proper via ethnic cleansing. But even beyond that, France always wanted it's border to Germany being the Rhine itself, something which you're going to see later again in the lead-up to World War 2, when France tries to annex the Rhineland from 1923 to 1930. That being a direct foundation for the rise of Hitler and considerably contributed to the german instability in that time-period. Either way: France jumped at the chance to declare war in Germany, in the hopes that the Empire would be distracted by the Serbs and Russians, so they could retake Alsac-Lorraine and the Rhineland at large. They weren't in it, to protect Serbia. They were in it to take other people's stuff away.
• Italy. Fucking despicable traitors. The only right thing they did early in the war was, to stay out of it. The moment they joined the Entente under the promise of being allowed to annex austrian territory on the Balkans they lost all right to be called "the good guys".
• Austria. Fuck them. This country should've been dissolved ages ago, as they are at the center of every single fucking major european war until and including World War 2. And looking on their actions these days? Fuck. This. Country. Nobody will miss it, once it's gone and everyone will be better off. You'd think Hungary is bad these days? Austria is every bit as bad and they somehow manage to pretend to be the victims the entire time still.
• The German Empire. Man, what a shitshow. The seeds for the war were laid in 1870/71, thanks to Bismarck's not entirely unreasonable actions. The war became inevitable the moment the Kaiser took over and kicked Bismarck out. The war started when this fuckwit went onto a vacation right after telling Austria: "Whatever you do, we'll back you!", presuming that everybody was so afraid of Germany (and Germany proper being more powerful than any singular other continental empire at the time), that they'd not attack, completely misreading that everyone wanted to go to war at the same time against him specifically. Funnily enough, Germany was probably the only party that didn't expect to have to go to war. Austria wanted to war with Serbia. Russia wanted to war with Austria. France and the UK wanted to war with Germany. Fuck Italy. Germany, however? Willing to threaten with a war, being ready to go to war, but not expecting having to. *facepalm*

There's literally noone in that group who is not to blame for what happened on July 28th, 1914 and none of them have a "good reason", much less a just one for the war. All of them were in there for their imperial ambitions and none fought for the freedom of anyone else.

Oh, but I forgot. You're an American, aren't you? And as such, you think your country entered the war for all the good reasons, right? Democracy, freedom and such? Wrong. You went in because of Manifest Destiny (you know, the stuff directly responsible for the native extermination on the northern american continent and a war with Mexico and with Canada and with Spain and various colonial aquisitions) and Wilson being a willing stooge for Britain's nefarious schemes, due to his superiority complex, racism and colonial aspirations, you know, the exact shit you probably condemned your country probably just a few weeks ago.

[hammerofglass]

But don't worry, it'll all be over by Christmas.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

At no point in my post, am I making any comment about whether there can be such a thing as a rightful "good" war or not.

Then your comprehension needs some work, as I never said that about war or what you wrote.

The UK being blood thirsty doesn't change the actual circumstance of what the war is about. France was even further removed from what's considered the instigating factors of the war.

I'm glad you finally mentioned Serbia. They had to make it into your list at some point considering something happened that involved them. You failed to mention though that Austria was attempting to occupy them, which was a critical point to the outbreak of the war even after the Serbian terrorist killed the Archduke.

[Madner Kami]

At no point in my post, am I making any comment about whether there can be such a thing as a rightful "good" war or not.

Then your comprehension needs some work, as I never said that about war or what you wrote.

The UK being blood thirsty doesn't change the actual circumstance of what the war is about. France was even further removed from what's considered the instigating factors of the war.

I'm glad you finally mentioned Serbia. They had to make it into your list at some point considering something happened that involved them. You failed to mention though that Austria was attempting to occupy them, which was a critical point to the outbreak of the war even after the Serbian terrorist killed the Archduke.

Wierd. I mentioned Serbia and Austrias fuckery in the previous post already, but heyho, I am not surprised you didn't take notice. I'll leave it to everyone else to figure out, who is lacking in reading comprehension at this point.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Israel is bombing the shit out of Bethlehem, and bombed the third oldest Christian church in the world.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I mean as far as there being no good guys or bad guys in the "Great" War, that goes without saying. As far as any account I've read on the proceedings of the conflict though, Russia, UK, and France acted rather consistently in accordance with how UN or NATO contingencies are carried out.

I mean I'm sure there's a bit of a breakdown there by modern standards, but given there WASN'T an international charter or modernist association between them... The political proceedings for that matter were as if governors of each state in the US acted as the legislative and judicial body of the country. It's hard to imagine getting down like that. All they know by that nature with respect to one another is trade deficits.