email@example.com - That's all very interesting and the way you explain it makes it all make some sort of sense, but what about the underlying reason that these wars have been created in the first place. Access to petroleum products and other natural resources that are located within these regions. I realise that if it wasn't the U.S., it would only be someone else. But, as long as we're dependant on fossil fuels, alternate sources of energy will not become widely utilized. Eliminate the need for these products and you eliminate the need for conflict.
well, I dunno how Vietnam was a war over oil, was more to stop the spread of comunism and Soviet influence (that region dose have usefull resources the Soviets could have used, that what you mean?). The Afghan-Russian war was mostly over land and oil I guess (for the russians anyways), had the US not helped the Afghans repel the Russian invasion, they would have taken it over, then Pakistan and other nations would fall as well I'd think. The Soviets would probably extend all the way down to the gulf, set up sea ports there and control most of the region, had they pulled that off the Soviet union would probably not have crumbeled and would still be around today.. perhaps more than strong enough to take on the U.S and win (had they become fanatical enough to endure the massive loses from a full nuclear strike). So considering what the Soviet union was and how it behaved, stoping them was definitly a good thing. As for the over-all fighting for resources issue, I don't think it's exclusivly that, it's a secondary issue in a lot of wars I'd say.. spread control, expand.. AND have the 'bonus' of taking extra resources. Although some sites are perticularly rich and can influence people to attack to attempt to seize them, coal deposits in Yugoslavia for example, fought over for a long time, one of the first thing Hitler tried to take in WWII.. and I think reacently taken over by Nato after the 'war' there (by military force? noooo... they did it because they were causing too much polutin.. hehe, that war.. I mean 'Armed conflict' was total bull s*** in my opinion btw). Gulf war was US defending it's oil supplies yes. I don't nescesearly see anything wrong with that though, a country needs to defend it's self, and since we are very dependant on fossil fuels, having their suplies in danger could devestate the U.S making it fall apart like the Soviets did.. bunch of poor people, and a weak un-paid army siting on some nukes, backed up by slowly degrading military equipment. Obviously we don't want that so we protect all of our intrests, including economic ones."as long as we're dependant on fossil fuels, alternate sources of energy will not become widely utilized."
Yes, but I'd argue that we are dependent on fossil fuels BECAUSE alternate sources of energy aren't widely avalible.. I don't think it's some conspiracy to keep using fossil fuels, if the US could cheaply produce energy for itself and not have to worry about getting into tricky conflicts to secure oil they'de do it. But what else is there? Solar and wind is a joke, weak and unreliable.. etc Some others provide good power (Hydrogen fuel cells etc) but they're expensive, and in some cases (if using some of these alternate high power energy sources) if you crash your car for example, could take out a city block in the process hehe.. so it's not that simple. "Eliminate the need for these products and you eliminate the need for conflict."
again, same as above.. and the these products are the foundation of all comerce, to switch from them you'de need to have something better ready and waiting to replace it or the US economy/quality of life would go down the toilet.
P.S All you complainers knock it off, what Army game? what do you think this is a gaming site? we're tying to discuse relevant issues here.