well, i can't and won't stop you, it's your chose. but it will not be a pretty war. unlike WW2, armies are possibly going to use biological, chemical and nuclear wapons. not a nice way to die. (were are the clean wars? the one with gun against gun?) anyway, if it gets to WW3 and my country calls upon its civilians, i'll answer that call (i'm a belgium patriot and i'm proud of it )
To Rich - Amen re VN and I'll add that poophole Iraq. To Roel - Comparitively speaking, the typical draftee in VN was younger than the typical draftee in WW II. I knew a lot of nice kids over there who would be grandpa's today. I'm not sure what you mean by "supported." If you mean logisticallly and with fire support, then I'd tend to agree. If you mean support at home, then you're right only up until the Tet offensive of 1968. After that, a lot of assholes back in the states started calling the troops baby killers, etc. As if the troops sent themselves over there. As to "nasty" wars - it makes no difference if you're hacked to death with a broad sword or vaporized with a nuke, you're dead. Perhaps worse than dead is being really banged up.
I meant "supported" in the sense that there was probably never an army in the history of the world that threw in so much equipment and raw firepower before throwing in any lives at all, than the American army in Vietnam. Both artillery and air power were used massively and intensively wherever they could; if there was any other way in which equipment could take the place of men, it was employed that way. As such, there really isn't anything more you can do to prevent lives being lost. You've already "mechanized" anything that can be.
Roel. Okay, I can dig that. I would add that all that firepower made a most impressive spectacle. Actually, no one has any real idea of spectacle (in conventional weapons anyway) until he's seen an air strike with nape at night or an AC-47 (nomenclature ?) gun ship circling around with miniguns roaring. What a rush!
it seem than china and russia are very reluctant to trow their weight around, europe is nowhere and the U.S. last three administrations have been pissing on russia ,the muslim and old europe from a very great height . so far the U.S has the most to loose from any change of the status quo ,yet their economic strenght is incressingly fragile and dependent on a very "master of the world " posture . a strong professional military is a great financial burden on any civilisation . There is always the temptation to govern by crisis
Re: governing by crisis. I assume you mean creating crises in order to profit politically. If you do, I tend to agree. 9/11 was, of course, a real crisis, but there have been an awful lot of not very bright things done in supposed response to that. And, yes, the US economy has a lot of brittle edges.
But will the fall of this great power trigger a war? I agree that many great powers in history have sought war to distract the populace from internal troubles as a last-ditch measure; I do not think the US has arrived at that point yet and I would not know with whom the US would seek war if it felt a need to. On the other hand many empires have fallen with only civil wars as a result.
Hi , to Phil and Roel concerning the "governing by crisis " I do not imply than a government has to plot to make one , it is often enough to grab one who just happen and to give it a push in the wanted direction , a crisis is basicaly a problem made up .Unfortunately crisis have a way of taking a life of it's own and can blow out of control , a bit like letting a fire grow a bit bigger to make the politico firemen looks good ,everybody love a succesful fireman . scary !!
A new war is begining to forge itself in the control of food crops and water. Bio engineered food where seeds are sterile: fruits, grains, legumes. Think I'm kidding eh well right now as you read this point in the USA, in very large greenhouses, somewhere in the Midwest, this is being perfected without fanfare; not in secret by any means. Farmers to this day have always kept a portion of their crops to sow next years harvest, with this sterile seed program implimented the farmer will have to purchase their seeds from a firm to sow a crop. This is complete control, this is extremely dangerous. Firms will dictate who plants what and the type of crop to be planted, perhaps; ransoming foods crops to entire nations and treaty blocks. Effetively, this eliminates the need for large armies as large, modern armies need to eat as they still march on their feet. What happens if this does become reality? Corporations will become the conquerors in waiting, great pain and suffering will take place due to ignorance and a self belief in a right to rule over the serfs. All of the huge progressions in the human condition will be set back centuries: civil rights, laws, constitutions: Universal Sufferage will once again need to be rebuilt upon the starving dead and nations will become owned assests of a few ruling elite that believe in their inherited right to rule. In summary, Facism is not dead. It has evolved from the battle field resultant of tanks, planes, ships, and fighting soldiers to the board-room executive, ignorant of the costs of war however it is fought. Soldiers will become population control (police) tools to keep those that rule untouched and out of public scruitiny. PS. This is not a political statement, it is a view on the coming war. I have mention no poilitical parties or names of leaders, nor a suggestion on how to vote. One needs to read the truth of the statements written here and decide the form of the coming war: nuclear, political idealogy, conventional, or any other. I have stated mine as some as you have, My hope is you ponder this and can look beyond convetional wars and fears and look at the evidence all around you. The Mutant Poodle
So, what type of war would such a monopoly of food supply cause? Other than the inevitable resistance against the introduction of such crops, which cannot really be called "war" and which is already going on. I don't think you can say that humanity will be sent back a few centuries, because in the days of serfdom it wasn't the crops the lords controlled but the land, or the monopoly on violence which in modern nation-states is held by the state. Only if corporations become wealthy and powerful enough not only to monopolize the supply of seed for food crops, but also to purchase all existing land from its present owners and overthrow the state entirely, would they be able to introduce a system remotely like that which dominated agricultural production in many parts of the world until the 19th century.
control of the food supply as pressure is nothing new , Athens buckled under at the end of the peloponese war when the spartiate navy trashed the athenian navy at the battle of goat river and took control of the bosphorus straights , cutting the corn supply to athens . The allied in1917 rationed drastically the food supply to neutrals europeens nations to avoid the reexporting of food to germany . the german civilians were deliberatly starved . the biggest food exporters are U.S.A. Canada , Argentina and Australia all trade in food sailing the sea under the benevolent guardianship of the U.S. Navy , all of the middle east has severe food deficit and relie on food imports . food security was one of the main reason the E.U. farm policy was implemented , a generation of europeen remembered the severe food deprivations due to the war . food is strategic jeaguer
The examples you give indicate that food can be used to win wars, which I will not deny. However did a monopoly on food ever start wars?
IIRC several wars were started in Classical history because one power was concerned that the other would dominate it's food supply routes... (I'll try and find out who/why/where/when/etc) Admittedly these were generally powers who were practically at war anyway...
people are usually pretty broad minded about reason to go to war . denial or the treat of denial of something of value can do the trick , the crusade got explicitly started to protect the right of access to jerusalem for pilgrinage . a big deal at the time . still is. war got started for the right to sell opium to the chinese who did not want the stuff . AN MY ALL TIME FAVORITE the war between chili and peru in the border desert for rich deposits of guano , mountains of birds droping valued as fertiliser leading the war to be called " la guerra del la mierda "
As far as I know the crusades are currently seen in light of a greater fit of economic, religious and political expansionism which determined European countries' policies in those centuries. Securing access to Jerusalem was a convenient pretext to move east and secure trading benefits with the East; the guarantee of going to heaven was merely a bonus. A great example of this is the Fourth Crusade; the Genoans and Venetians set out to reconquer Jerusalem, but when they got their hands on Constantinople instead, they forced the Byzantine emperor to grant them trading benefits, and then they just went home. Re: Mutant Poodle's scenario, how long will that work? If all the property and money of the world is gradually taken by this large corporation how is it supposed to make profit? How is it supposed to sell its goods if the peasants simply do not have the money to buy it anymore? So they are reduced to serfdom - to what end? It does not increase the benefits of the corporation to own the labourers themselves, does it?
I'm not taking of deep reasons , that's conjectural until one get blue in the face for the children crusade , I doubt very much if they had any clues of when or where . I suspect it's true for most wars, there is the bullsh** and there is the personnal reasons why being a hero is better than being a manure technician grade 2
In the intelectual desert of islamist though stand an oasis in the 13th century there was a dude in present day algeria called ibn kaldun ,he developed the historical theory of " the build and the sown " in wich the country side generated protectors , rulers , the most succesful would by nature expand and create a city , who would come into comflict with other cities , success would lead to kingdoms whose capital , the original village would suck the surplus of everything it controled ,and the process could not be stopped until the countryside , drained of men and wealth could no more , then the cities would collapse in terrible turmoil and after a period of recovery the process would restart . here is food for though
Ibn Kaldun was ahead of his time with these theories, but they are not taken seriously anymore because they suggest a sort of "law of history", a concept which practically only the minority of Marxist historians still adhere to. The Middle Ages were the heyday of Islamic thought as a whole, not just because of Ibn Kaldun. You cannot declare the whole realm of Islamic thought a "desert" because in those days all constructive scientific thought came directly from the Islamic world, whereas very little at all emerged from Europe in the same period.