what it's all about?
Out of context: Reply #35
- Started
- Last post
- 99 Responses
- unknown0
I grew up hearing about troubles in the middle-east. Iran-Iraq confrontations, or terrorist attacks, anywhere in the middle-east, are no-news since the early-80s. It is pretty obvious that wars in this region are fuelled by some kind of rich natural-resource. Natural resources in developing countries tend to develop into wars, by enabling power struggles to be discussed with expensive weaponry. See Angolan diamond and oil mix for a fourty year war example. And middle-east is a zone of consecutive wars, with generations of people who have always lived at war, and probably think it is as much a part of their world as the sun or the moon.
It doesn't take much to conclude that wars in the middle-east are caused by the most important natural resource of our time: fossil fuels, namely oil. In cold-war days, US and USSR played political games in the region to get control of oil. Naturally, none completely succeeded. Now, there's only one player. And in a one player game, victory is certain.
Currently, the US are playing for control of Saudi Arabia. The king is old, and his successor is uncertain. The Iraq attack scenario is an excuse to plant a few hundred thousand men and their equipment in the region. This alone guarantees control of the succession mechanism and political allegiance of the new king.
The response? Europe can't possibly compete military with the US. However, we compete technologically. We have the means to make oil control a moot point in ten years. Even inside the US.
I can see how N.Korea fall into that catagory or for that matter India