The article is full of oversimplifications like WWI was "because of Germany". Oh , yeah. Why thinking when you can blame someone else?. An article about WWs in

The article is full of oversimplifications like WWI was "because of Germany". Oh , yeah. Why thinking when you can blame someone else?. An article about WWs in the Economist should talk about economic data, about banks burning and destroying the savings of decades of the work of the people. They need to talk about Oligopolies, about Roosevelt(Teddy) trying to do something about that , but at the end the biggest of all(the Fed) being created in 1913. They need to talk about Africa and middle East, and India colonies and commerce at the time. But this has a problem: It is not as easy as "blame the Germans!" "The second precaution that would make the world safer is a more active American foreign policy. " Oh yeah, again. "Barack Obama has pulled back in the Middle East—witness his unwillingness to use force in Syria. " Wow, this is the better line of all. If something Syria has shown us is the willingness of US to use force in Syria, only being stopped by China and Russia. "But unless America behaves as a leader and the guarantor of the world order, it will be inviting regional powers to test their strength by bullying neighbouring countries." Today the US is the biggest bully of all. If any parallelism is to be extracted from WWs to today is countries like China behaving like the US of the past, as creditors of the world, while the rest of the world overspends and get in as many wars as possible to protect their turf.