Posted on 01/15/2006 10:04:04 AM PST by weef
With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.
The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.
A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
After reading the entire article, political movie themes are at their pinnacle.
Global warming has been done, invasion from space has been done, numerous movies of ME conflict have been done.
A war in the near future is a most thought out idea for a movie to bring back the disenchanted who have left the theater for reasons of disinterest.
You mean like all the refuges who fled Hitler in WWII or those who managed to escape from Stalin and the communists?
If nukes went off in this country and we did not know who did it, this country would take out the nuclear facilities of all terrorist nations.
That would mean good by North Korea, Iran, and perhaps the nuclear facilities of Pakistan. I would expect a surgical strike on their nuclear facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. After we were hit we would have the "weapon signature" of the nuclear facility that processed the fuel for the bomb. Once the isotope mixture is analyzed we would know which nation did it. I would then expect a strategic strike against that countries military, civilian and industrial base with the intention of maximizing destruction and death. In effect the removal of the offending society from the face of the earth.
(Do not kick a sleeping tiger in the butt, it makes him angry and hungry)
"For without access to US markets the Chinese would have to revert to making pig iron in their backyard furnaces for forging statues of Chairman Mao."
A historian, I see. There's alot of knowledgeable people on FR...
Since it is clear we are fundamentally on the same side I will leave the rest of your post without comment. But on this one you hit a four bagger my friend.
China and Tehran could allie themselves if China is preparing for a military move against Taiwan. THat would be a challenging situation for the U.S.
"The USA's birthrate is in a downward spiral, just like old Europe...thank you abortion and the necessity of a two income family to sustain itself.
Buy a clue, please?"
From the U.S. Census bureau @http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
U.S. POPClock Projection
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 01/15/06 at 20:04 GMT (EST+5) is
297,913,225
COMPONENT SETTINGS
One birth every.................................. 8 seconds
One death every.................................. 12 seconds
One international migrant (net) every............ 31 seconds
Net gain of one person every..................... 14 seconds
One thing I can guarantee you: When Iran has both the CAPABILITY AND INTENT TO NUKE ISRAEL, ISRAEL WILL LAUNCH A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE. It will not matter what Bush or anyone else says, we learned our lesson at Dauchau, NEVER AGAIN! The mad mullahs are probably hoping that such a strike by Israel will turn the Islamic world against the U.S., and that may happen. However, if the Iranian people let their leaders threaten Israel, they will suffer right along with the leaders.
All else is speculation. But the above is a stone cold fact.
Israel can't "take a hit". Thus, if they have reason to believe the country is in danger, their leadership will strike first.
Everybody in the world knows this. Except, possibly, Iran.
And therein lies The Problem...
A nuclear exchange between Irael and Iran would likely include a nuclear blast directly on Mecca and other Muslim holy sites.
Ping for later read
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B000CDG8DS/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/103-3596996-2694264?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
there are some good reviews of his work at Amazon;
I'm surprised he isn't more of a presence at FR and less of a presence at Harvard.
Thanks for posting this.
save
That is only if a republican or a rare democrat is the president. I don't think most democrats will fight.
Zin, ping.
Interesting Times ping
I think the author's intent is to encourage intervention. This sentence is completely false:
"Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis: not Tony Blair, he had wrecked his domestic credibility over Iraq and was in any case on the point of retirement - Ariel Sharon. "
No one is needed to stiffen President Bush's resolve. If Iran becomes a nuclear threat, we'll intervene before they launch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.