|
anthrosub -> RE: Question to those versed in history. (7/20/2006 9:09:03 PM)
|
I can't think of any previous conflicts that resemble the Arab/Israeli muddle by any stretch of the imagination. What I can say is most conflicts have been unique in their origins and how they were finally played out over time and ultimately lost steam. I'm not fluent in history but I have run across some interesting tidbits here and there. For example, the great naval battles that involved countries like Spain, Great Britain, and France were to a large extent spurred over fishing and farming if you can believe it.
Before refrigeration was invented, most countries in Europe were very dependent on good harvests to see the population through the winter. To add extra insurance, fish was caught at sea and salted, then packed in specially made ice houses that were made out of layers of straw and mud to keep them on ice. These buildings were so efficient that the ice would last almost through the summer (keep in mind the summers were much cooler during this period of history). The harvest was consumed in the winter months and the fish during the summer while the next harvest was growing. If the harvest was poor, the need for fish increased as it would then be needed for both seasons.
Anyway, each country would lay claim to the areas where fishing was plentiful and on several occasions, disputes over the fishing claims erupted into warfare at sea. With the discovery of the new world and new areas to be fished, this removed a lot of the pressure. This was not the sole reason for the countries fighting each other but it was a significant one.
Finally, there's a great book you can read by James Dunnigan called, "How to Make War." Oddly enough, it's really quite fascinating as it discusses details nearly everyone is not aware of. In the book, there's a quote...
"Economics determine politics and politics determine war."
I wonder how this might apply to the problems between the member states of the Middle East.
By the way, we defeated the Soviets using credit and basically forced them into bankruptcy. Reagan knew that Soviet doctrine calls for having 3 times the number of weapons the enemy has. So he started building up our military (on credit) and got thought of as a warmongering president as a result. The Soviets met this by trying to build up their own military (3 times our size). Since the United States has more financial solvency with the free world and the Soviet Union is basically a closed monetary system and unable to work with the global market as easily, they ran out of cash.
After the cold war ended, we sold off or scrapped a lot of our inventory. We sold a lot of our hardware to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War ended (which was right on the heels of the end of the Cold War).
anthrosub
|
|
|
|
