I would agree --- except for a couple of provisos ---
Germany/Turkey WW1 ---- Yes, Ferdinand was the excuse, but the Europeans were carving up Africa, and Turkey had eyes on the Balkans.
also we had an "Empire" (Economic ? ) to defend.
WW2 -- we were tied into a France/Poland Treaty of mutual defence
Regrettably (?) Soldiers just toddle off to be shot at ----- I don't remember ever having any input to the decision !!
The Cost of War
Moderator: Moderators
- NEILL THE NOTORIOUS
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 2612
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:01 pm
- Real Name: NEILL PURDIE EVANS
-
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 1902
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:30 pm
- Real Name: AP
Re: The Cost of War
I do take your point about Zimbabwe. I think Rwanda was the classic example of the world standing by and doing nothing. The Balkans, of course - next to nothing. My point about oil is simply that the supply from Libya didn't need securing, though it was undoubtedly the only thing that enabled the wolf to get into sheep's clothing.jhopgood wrote:I have always been under the impression that the underlying cause of most wars is to gain economic advantage. Securing supply of a necessary commodity, oil, would fall into that category.
If the desire to protect populations from harm was the criteria, then surely places like Zimbabwe would have received belligerent help a long time ago, but then Zimbabwe is of little economic consequence to the major western powers.
I may be cynical but no-one spends billions of euros helping someone else for purely altruistic purposes. There must be an underlying reason, and the most obvious one is to ensure the oil supply.
- jhopgood
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 1884
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:26 pm
- Real Name: John Hopgood
- Location: Benimeli, Alicante
Re: The Cost of War
As one who was stuck in Panama when the US invaded and got some pretty interesting video from the first minutes until I got out on a German military flight, getting Noriega was the manifest reason for the invasion. However, many believe that it was a combination of the Monroe Doctrine (viz Grenada and others), the thought that "uncontrolled" Panamanians (Noriega) could not run the Panama Canal as the US would like, and trouble in the US backyard (Central America), that persuaded Bush to send in the Marines.sejintenej wrote: The US invasion of Panama; economic advantage? I think not; they simply wanted to stop drug running and get Noriega.
(I had a grandstand view of the encirclement of the Papal Nunciatura, starting from about 20 minutes after Noriega went in. Apparently if I had got it to CNN quickly, I could have sold it for about US$50,000, but we couldn't get out of the hotel!)
Barnes B 25 (59 - 66)