North America, the EU, Muslim Oil, and the rest of the world
There are some indications North America (NA) & the European Union (EU) group might engage in military conflict with Muslim oil rich nations (MO), above and beyond the attack on Iraq that has already occurred.
Seems there is a tendency amongst certain elements to assume that such an attack, will be good for the NA/EU group, simply by being bad for the MO group, or, simply by being worse for the MO group than it is for the NA/EU group, or simply by being good for the NA/EU hgroup, and bad for the MO group.
This kind of thinking appears to be based on the assumption that the world consists of two parts, the NA/EU group, and the MO group. In fact the world consists of NA/EU group, a MO group, and also a third rest-of-the-world (RTW) group.
This kind of thinking is based on the idea, that if something is bad for the MO group, the result is automatically good for the NA/EU group. Actually, a war between the NA/EU and the MO group could be bad for MO group, good for the NA/EU group, and even better for the RTW group with the result that the NA/EU group's position, though improved in terms of power by the war, ends up worse than it would have been otherwise, due to the RTW group increasing its power as a result of the the war between the NA/EU group and the MO group, more than the NA/EU group.
For example, if before the NA/EU vs MO conflict the power breakdown was NA/EU 34%, MO 33% and RTW 33%, a conflict between NA/EU and RTW could change this distribution to NA/EU 35%, MO 1%, and RTW 64%, leaving NA/EU dominated by RTW, despite NA/EU having increased its share of world power. Likewise, the NA/EU vs. MO conflict could leave the NA/EU position unchanged at 34%, while MO dropped to 1% and RTW rose to 65%.
A conflict between NA/EU & MO could damage MO, while at the same time damaging NA/EU leaving NA/EU in a position worse than it would have been had there been no conflict between NA/EU & MO. Such could be the case if NA/EU was damaged more than MO, it could be the case if NA/EU was damaged as much as MO, and it could EVEN be the case if NA/EU was damaged LESS than MO. For example, the power distribution could change from NA/EU 34% MO 33% and RTW 33% to NA/EU 17% MO 1%, and RTW a dominating 82%, as a result of which despite MO being damaged more than NA/EU, NA/EU ends up being dominated by RTW.
Aside from such relative power breakdowns, a war that damaged MO more than it damaged NA/EU, could produce unacceptable damage to the interests of RTW.
Seems there is a tendency amongst some in power to attend cocktail parties everyday, sometimes in the afternoon, sometimes in the evening, maybe even in the morning. That is alot of drinking, especially seeing how drinking early in the day hits a person, especially an older person. Nations and groups of nations should not embark on wars impulsively, but, rather, if at all, prudently, after wisely considering various possible outcomes and alternatives.
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
Seems there is a tendency amongst certain elements to assume that such an attack, will be good for the NA/EU group, simply by being bad for the MO group, or, simply by being worse for the MO group than it is for the NA/EU group, or simply by being good for the NA/EU hgroup, and bad for the MO group.
This kind of thinking appears to be based on the assumption that the world consists of two parts, the NA/EU group, and the MO group. In fact the world consists of NA/EU group, a MO group, and also a third rest-of-the-world (RTW) group.
This kind of thinking is based on the idea, that if something is bad for the MO group, the result is automatically good for the NA/EU group. Actually, a war between the NA/EU and the MO group could be bad for MO group, good for the NA/EU group, and even better for the RTW group with the result that the NA/EU group's position, though improved in terms of power by the war, ends up worse than it would have been otherwise, due to the RTW group increasing its power as a result of the the war between the NA/EU group and the MO group, more than the NA/EU group.
For example, if before the NA/EU vs MO conflict the power breakdown was NA/EU 34%, MO 33% and RTW 33%, a conflict between NA/EU and RTW could change this distribution to NA/EU 35%, MO 1%, and RTW 64%, leaving NA/EU dominated by RTW, despite NA/EU having increased its share of world power. Likewise, the NA/EU vs. MO conflict could leave the NA/EU position unchanged at 34%, while MO dropped to 1% and RTW rose to 65%.
A conflict between NA/EU & MO could damage MO, while at the same time damaging NA/EU leaving NA/EU in a position worse than it would have been had there been no conflict between NA/EU & MO. Such could be the case if NA/EU was damaged more than MO, it could be the case if NA/EU was damaged as much as MO, and it could EVEN be the case if NA/EU was damaged LESS than MO. For example, the power distribution could change from NA/EU 34% MO 33% and RTW 33% to NA/EU 17% MO 1%, and RTW a dominating 82%, as a result of which despite MO being damaged more than NA/EU, NA/EU ends up being dominated by RTW.
Aside from such relative power breakdowns, a war that damaged MO more than it damaged NA/EU, could produce unacceptable damage to the interests of RTW.
Seems there is a tendency amongst some in power to attend cocktail parties everyday, sometimes in the afternoon, sometimes in the evening, maybe even in the morning. That is alot of drinking, especially seeing how drinking early in the day hits a person, especially an older person. Nations and groups of nations should not embark on wars impulsively, but, rather, if at all, prudently, after wisely considering various possible outcomes and alternatives.
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 4:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home