Contemporary Wars

Well, how about the Iranian seizure of islands claimed by the UAE in 1971 and 1992, or its support for the coup attempt in Bahrain in 1981?
Not impressive military aggression, yet not a blank record either.
Secondly, the fact that a country does not attack others doesnt necessarily make her untouchable for some obscure reason...

Compelled by whom?

Maybe, but sitting by while all the WMD seeking countries are arming doesnt seem like an alternative either.
Doing that would actually mean climbing higher on the mountain and THEN taking the inevitable plunge. In contrast [/U]risking[U] a jump from this lower altitude gives some people some chances of surviving...

Not blank I agree, but blanker than a great many other countries. No one talks of disarming the US because you visited nearby Panama or supported coup attempts in South and Central America. Double standards are not helping democracies on the world stage.

By the vocal part of their public opinion. It keeps them popular and that counts in a political system derived from their tribal customs. It is very apparent when you study the wars of 48 and 73.

The alternative has never been between doing nothing and going to war. These countries are seeking WMD for a reason. Cancel that reason and you will get better more durable results than by attempting to invade all candidate country in the world because that path has exactly 0% chance of success. On the contrary, I would argue that it's a ticket for a mushroom.

Countries will try to maximize their power and influence irrespective of this or that reason. What makes you bet that if the US stops its aggressive stance towards dubious regimes the latter will stop their arming? How can you be sure? Can you vouch for those people?
Look at North Korea. Buying time with talks and diplomatic meetings and in the background keeping the program going, then unilaterally breaking off talks and restating "we have nukes". More nukes. This game can go on and on until they have an entire arsenal. Then what? These things should be stopped in the bud.
Thats exactly what Iran tries to do with the EU-3 initiative. My personal opinion is that there is no need for war, but good intelligence and several well placed MOABs down the iranian nuclear plant's air shaft and anywhere else needed. I dont see the Iranians retaliating.
If the russians or chinese make a move, well its obvious that their intentions were those all along but were trying to squeeze a better chip on the board, maybe a nuclear Iran. Inevitable later on.

Yes and by so doing they are exactly like Russia, G-B, the US or China so there is no clear-cut morale high ground here. If the US had no nuclear capability it would probably seek one.

I can't. Stopping the agressive stance is not enough. You have to establish trust garantees, political and economic ties that make the choice to go nuclear less appealing than the alternative. Not easy. Even that way I cannot be 100% sure.

The only thing which I'm pretty sure is that, sooner or later, a continuous, agressive response risk triggering the very backblow you are seeking to avoid.

I understand this position, even if I don't share it. The Iranians will retaliate as they can, there is more than one way to do it. Of course you are going to further antagonize God knows how many countries. And you going to be nailed by the one you underestimated.

These problems have no purely military solutions. Perhaps a mixed approach can give the best results.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 11, 2005 05:48 pm

OK mate, that settles it. Basically we both understand whats at stake and whats the situation but have different solutions.
The only thing to do is wait and see .
Anyways, maybe somebody else has something to say, we've already monopolised the discussion here...

Take care.

OK mate, that settles it. Basically we both understand whats at stake and whats the situation but have different solutions.
The only thing to do is wait and see .
Anyways, maybe somebody else has something to say, we've already monopolised the discussion here...

Take care.

I think a Pax Americana is the best hope. I know it sounds hopelessly imperialist...but think about it. Pax Romana went on for how long?

If the U.S. succeeds in building a real anti missle defense, it could be "game over".

Is that so bad? To buy time, we need to limit the # of nukes, any way possible.

Military hegemony is NEVER gonna be what it was....we see that now. Why? because we now have a GLOBAL economic (capitalist) system. The state will indeed whither away, in Marx's famous words, but not the way he thought it would.
Economic power is no longer state centered or even dependent on a state at all..in fact states, and even mega states (like the E.U.) r hindrances to rather than engines of economic growth.

In Pax Americana, as long as democracy stays vibrant, and the Bushies get bashed by resurgent progressive politicos here, we should be O.K. call me an idealist.

Who's Lind, btw? U.S. State Dept? I really liked that quote....solid.

re Algeria..of course we have everything to learn from history; I didn't say that we did not...I just didn't like the comparison....no way, imo.

Stop the love fest u 2, b4 it gets started and bores the crap out of everybody.

Then call me one too There are worse things in the world than Pax America but I'm afraid Bush tendencies are leaning more toward Bello Americanum.

Lind is director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.

Here is a link toward a lot of articles and archives.

Lind

Amen and Thank God for that!!!

Yes, but a system that will crack like an egg shell when the oil gets more and more expensive. With time the energy needed to get a barrel of oil out of the ground will surpass the caloric value of that barrel. Then its all game over for industrial capitalism.
The countries that have some reserves will keep them for their military. Weaker countries that invested like sheep in tanks and fighter jets will have the biggest april fool's day in their little ol' lives...
Better start reviewing the tactics used in Mad Max...

The engines of economic growth are totally dependent on resources. The more countries attain a high level of development and the higher their consumption rate grows the quicker those engines will choke. Its a matter of time.
Look at India and China rocking the boat of the economic world...

Anyways, I'm writing an extensive analysis on this subject, and believe me, we are not going to be OK. The stuff is so heavy that I even missed my dealine. I'd better get back to work!

Fortunately, the casus belli always goes in the same direction as some economic interests :

Could there be another reason to attack Iran ?

But it isn't allowed to speak about economy. Really. It's not PC

The engines of economic growth are totally dependent on resources. The more countries attain a high level of development and the higher their consumption rate grows the quicker those engines will choke. Its a matter of time.
Look at India and China rocking the boat of the economic world...

Anyways, I'm writing an extensive analysis on this subject, and believe me, we are not going to be OK. The stuff is so heavy that I even missed my dealine. I'd better get back to work!

So, I take it u r not a beleiver in "the Hydrogen Economy"?

Your scenario is about as likely as a Bush 3rd term, with Mad Max as his V.P. Industrial capitalists r staying up late at night working on renewable energy; solar, geothermal, tidal, wind..take your pick, invest some money and get rich.

The most potent weapons platforms, submarines and surface ships armed with cruise missles and drone recon. r already nuc powered, fossil fuel independent. (Of course they still require petrochemicals for lubrication, etc.)

Mideast oil will one day soon either be exhausted or inessential; the whole thing is a holding action, Iraq included. The real trick there is gonna be to make sure the mullahs don't incinerate us all b4 they get dragged kicking and screaming out of the 12th century.

Of course resources r the engine of ec. growth..Economics 101. There's no evidence I'm aware of that growth rate leads to choking; most conventional economists would, I think, argue the opposite.

India and China r not rocking the boat....they are the boat. Question will be if a rising world GDP tide will float them and the western economies equally high.
cheers.

Yes LOL, BUT: if we are to take seriously the junk economical science used in the link you graciously provided, then the most interested people in seeing that the dollar remains the currency used in oil transactions are the Europeans: because right now the US Dollar is at an all-time low versus the Euro, and the ratio is not likely to modify too much in the foreseeable future, the Europeans' money buy more dollars than ever, thus more oil than ever. And everyone seems to be happy.

And BTW: the dollar may be paper money, but it's not only money on paper For every dollar on the global market there are goods available for buying. Unlike Weimar Germany, the US Federal Reserve is not about ruining the US and the countries of the world that trade with the US by printing money without coverage. Money is not something you can just print and buy stuff - money is value equivalent. As the value on the market increases, so does the amount of money. So far, the amount of value equivalent in Euros available on the global market is nowhere near the amount of Dollar value - the 35-hour work week has side-effects you know.

However it's funny that you should mention the links between Iran and the dollar because inadvertently you almost stumbled upon a REAL story and cassus belli about them: for years Iran printed so-called billions of "superdollars", "perfect" counterfeit bills with which it flooded the Middle-East and financed various terror groups' activities - does Bekaa Valley sound familiar to you? And there are plenty of people that at some point in time, even in Romania, traded their good, genuine, hard-worked money for slimy "superdollar" bills that Iran is to thank for, only to find out later that in fact they traded money for nothing - or to put it in vernacular lingo, that they were "robbed blind", courtesy of the friendly, innocent mullahs of Iran.

For someone who has stayed up late at night and worked on these problems I can tell you that renewables are an alternative only for small, village sized, food-sufficient communities. Not for an entire industrial economy and its infrastructure. Not at this high level of development at least.

Surface ships and submarines cannot be effective on land. If you are talking about carriers, their power lies in the airplanes, and airplanes use fuel. At least I never heard of a nuclear-powered fighter.

The world experienced high growth rates only in the last 100 years, with the advent of oil-driven industrial capitalism. The question is not of the end of the world when the oil is over, but of what will happen with the surplus of population acquired in that period.
Lebensraum as a doctrine will be back like never expected.

The question is not if the Europeans would rather buy cheaper oil denominated in dollars, but whether the US can afford to buy more expensive oil denominated in Euros... Its a political move, not only an economic one.

Yes LOL, indeed. It can only be junk economics you know. Besides the facts that you don't want to grasp or even look at stakes because unveiling those taboo things wouldn't fit well with the trash propaganda produced by a warmongering administration. But please if you want to refute arguments, come with something credible, not 3 years old comments for the gullible. The control of the oil currency is of vital interest for the world financial flows, countries currency reserves, foreign debt etc and is a very serious problematic.

Saying that EU prefers a $ dominated market to be able to buy cheap oil with it's stronger currency must be one the best jokes of the forum.

Ok, let's turn the oil currency to Sudanese dinars : everyone will buy very cheap oil

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 13, 2005 12:35 pm