Comments on: Syrian intervention invokes Europe’s history Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:42:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: retroarama Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:54:48 +0000 With our all American can do optimism and a resounding chorus of ‘Onward christian Soldiers,” Americans have flexed their formidable global muscles in the Middle east, confident that our take charge performance would be gladly received wherever we went. Perhaps oil not well that ends well, especially when fuels rush in….

By: freethepeople Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:42:37 +0000 America has used it’s diplomacy and military to ensure stability in the Middle East in order to provide for the flow of oil to our thirsty economy.

Now that America is able to produce it’s own oil, or import from Canada (a much closer source), America is using those same tools to create instability in the Middle East.

Notice that the U.S. has not gained any oil from it’s foray into Iraq.

It is China that is contracting for Iraq’s oil. China will continue to expand it’s partnerships in the Middle East to ensure that it’s growing economy has enough oil. China will also have to pay for keeping the Middle East secure and stable. The price of oil will continue to rise as the cost of ensuring stability grows. In addition, as other growing economies come ‘online’, the competition for energy resources will also cause oil prices to rise. As the U.S. becomes a net exporter of energy resources, the impact on the U.S. economy will be profoundly positive.

If anyone thinks that the U.S. will continue to be global policeman in that part of the world, they would be mistaken. If anything, the U.S. will cause continued instability in the M.E. in order to cause China to contribute more of their GDP to securing the area. In other words, why should the U.S. let China benefit from any peace that may have been established over the course of generations, and cost of lives and fortune.

The U.S. shift to the Pacific makes more sense now if you think about it.

Not only can we develop closer ties to allies and others in that region, we can if necessary, make it much harder for the Chinese to import from the Middle East. This is
part of the price China must pay for supporting North Korea and annexing Tibet, amongst other things. By supporting North Korea, China has caused the U.S. to spend a lot of fortune to support it’s allies, South Korea and Japan.

Inflaming the Shiite-Sunni/Persian-Arab conflict creates an ongoing fiasco that …
1. China will have to manage in order to ensure the flow of oil from the M.E. and other imports from their growing relationships in Africa.
2. Russia will have to manage in order to keep the fiasco from spreading within their areas of influence.

By: KyleDexter Mon, 09 Sep 2013 14:49:10 +0000 There hasent been a sectarian war going on for the past 30 years. The Iran/Iraq war was territorial and political (Saddam wanted Irans oilfields, and the US wanted war in Muslim lands).

The author is incorrect. But now there is a sectarian war going on in Syria, and to an extent Iraq.

By: batory Sat, 07 Sep 2013 21:26:13 +0000 From the historical point of view there is a glaring omission in this article. It does not mention another European power of that time (beside England): Polish-Lithuanian Commenwealth. This Commenwealth despite bordering with Germann princehoods, did not entangle in their affairs, thus avoiding catastrophic sectrian and religious wars and flourish till the beginnig of XVIII century.

By: golding Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:11:43 +0000 Violence begets violence. Military planners in the first 2 world wars planned violence on a scale that observers thought would never be repeated. Naive citizenry always trust their peers like academics their landowning elites. The end result of this cycle of violence is the massacre of brave soldiers in the theatre of war that never brings a single CHANGE for the better in international relationships.
When soldiers are willing to see the matrix of intrigue, double entendre & propaganda into which they are thrown like lambs led to the slaughter, a time will come when the violent solution organised by planners behind closed doors will be seen for what it is.
A cabal. WTFU soldiers!

By: ptiffany Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:48:59 +0000 What an amazingly garbled analysis! It starts with the fantasy of a “strictly time-limited military action”, then goes on to contradict that concept with the near certainty that it will expand. It will not help the world’s economy, but will certainly line the pockets of the Plutocracy who always stand to gain when their is conflict and the United States is more than willing to dump “foreign aid” into the pockets of American arms manufacturers.

This sounds like a wild conspiracy theory, except it’s true. Most of the foreign aid to countries like Egypt and Pakistan has gone into their respective militaries who get billions of dollars of “aid” – American military weapons. Of course, the Members of Congress get their cut, but let’s not call it corruption, but “brokerage”.

By: AdamSmith Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:59:14 +0000 An excellent, thought-provoking article.

Well said, Anatole Kaletsky.

This is the type of article that brings me back to Reuters.

By: AZreb Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:25:55 +0000 “Peace among nations is bad for the weapons trade” – who will profit? The MIC and weapons trade in the US and other countries.

“Limited strikes” will kill many innocent civilians, even as the drone “targeted attacks” have done, creating more hatred toward the US. More Middle eastern and African countries will have more reasons to mistrust and despise us. Attacking Syria will drag us into another “war” and that war may be joined by more countries against us.

By: TomTele Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:45:15 +0000 The analogy to the 30 years war is excellent. Think that Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity and it seems the Muslims are right on schedule for a Reformation maybe

By: TomTele Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:33:27 +0000 The treaty of Westphalia was not from the 17th century. It was produced in 19th century Vienna, by the frightened monarchs and monarchists who thought the revolutionary ideals of France plus the new Nationalism ( from Napoleon partly) would break up the order of Europe. I think 1815 was the year, but I do know not the 17th century. Such mistakes makes me not trust anything else the guy says.