War. What is it good for?
...the situation of a massive famine or drought, or epidemic like AIDS. A rabblerouser tells disaffected youth their problems are due to the Western industrialized nations that held back the medicines that could have prolonged the life of their family members, didn't open up their markets to their products in order to protect their own farmers or manufacturers, and have done nothing but to exploit their continent ever since they arrived. With the technical expertise now spreading throughout the Third World to construct their own weapons of mass destruction, and with uranium deposits already available in Africa, it doesn't take long for a renegade army to construct its bomb. Meanwhile, a series of environmental catastrophes has struck the western industrialized nations, bringing about drought and increases in food and fuel prices. Angry citizens demand that cheap and secure sources of energy be sought out or else their governments won't be reelected in the next election. An effort to seize an oil field, or rich agricultural land in the Third World is met with violence and counter - attacks through first a wave of terrorism. Western nations then crack down on non-caucasian citizens who have links to Africa or the Middle East by passing laws allowing for their civil rights to be forfeit during what is described an a national emergency. Angered, the renegade leader uses the media images to whip up further support and consolidate his own position. The first natural target is Europe, especially France, which has just passed a series of laws forbidding the display of religious symbols or kerchiefs or scarfs. The soldiers involved in this conflict are doped up children who are extremely vicious and strike fear into their opponents, who respond with ever greater brutality. Western nations feel the only way to ensure their own security is to invade Africa, but with the rabble rouser leader holding a number of nuclear weapons, and enjoying support from people in other parts of the world who are happy to see Western industrialized nations starting to suffer as they did, the question is where does the line between peace and pragmatic self-interest get drawn? Such a scenario is not entirely far-fetched. Consider the Bosnian War where Serb nationalists, faced with the dismantling of the former Yugoslavia by restive minorities, took the step to kill those minorities to keep their borders intact. This first major conflict within Europe in 50 years drew no substantive help for embattered Croats and Bosnians. It only took the involvement of the United States, through a massive bombing campaign, to turn the page and allow the Croats, Bosnians and Serbs to redraw the maps and create their own nations. The European response was to their minds sensible. The memories of the First World War starting in Sarajevo were sensible, and the war seemed to be contained within their own frontiers. There was no appetite to stand against genocide. The civil war in Rwanda is another example. This time, the Americans and the United Nations stood back while massive genocide took place in that African country. The United States was perhaps spooked by the failure of its peacekeeping mission in Somalia that results in a helicopter being shot down and bodies of dead Americans being dragged through the streets. The United States formed a coalition for the Persian Gult and the Iraq Wars, but in both of those wars, their overwhelming technological superiority and relatively flat landscape ensured quick victory in a conventional military sense. The United States is learning that in Iraq now, it is possible to win the war, but lose the peace, as the expectations it raised in invading Iraq have not been met in the months since. Recently released documents under the British Official Secrets Act, show that in the 1970s, the United States was prepared to invade Middle East oil fields to obtain a secure supply of oil for the American market. However, President Richard Nixon, facing impeachment in the Watergate Scandal, did not follow through, but yet the British were worried enough to prepare a briefing for their Prime Minister. This would not have been the first time one country would have invaded another for purely economic reasons. The British, French and Israelis invaded Egypt in 1956 after ...