This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
robertsnj · 56-60, M
It is a bigger question than my brain can handle but if I had time to dig I would probably lean on the Brookings Institution and the Aspen Institute as think tank resources the most.
Sometimes from an economic idea feels non achieveable. If you work the equation backwards wars are often large scale competition for scare resources.
The world insterest in Afganistan has opium as an alluring factor
Russia's interest in Uraine has natural gas, ores and other tied to
The interest in Taiwan is around chipsets.
The Middle East has oil
I am not sure we can remove the root cause of competition for resources of value.
We could possibly diminish it by promoting more free trade, double down on supply chain processes and encourage when we can countries, promoting mutual cooperation for mutual benefit.
I am American and can see how much of a foothold China has in the continent of Africa by building and investing their infastructure while my dumb politicians invest in more guns as a way to access resources.
I am confident China will win the war for Africian resources over the USA and Europe because their strategy makes more sense--espcially to countries like Nigera and Angola.
From a religous weather it was the genocide in Rawanda (Christians vs Muslims) the Kosovo war (again Christians vs Muslims) or any Middle Eastern war (Jews and Christians vs Muslism)
Religion in addition to being useless in a modern world gives it followers endless permission to kill members of other religions. Less religon equals less war equals more world peace.
Sometimes from an economic idea feels non achieveable. If you work the equation backwards wars are often large scale competition for scare resources.
The world insterest in Afganistan has opium as an alluring factor
Russia's interest in Uraine has natural gas, ores and other tied to
The interest in Taiwan is around chipsets.
The Middle East has oil
I am not sure we can remove the root cause of competition for resources of value.
We could possibly diminish it by promoting more free trade, double down on supply chain processes and encourage when we can countries, promoting mutual cooperation for mutual benefit.
I am American and can see how much of a foothold China has in the continent of Africa by building and investing their infastructure while my dumb politicians invest in more guns as a way to access resources.
I am confident China will win the war for Africian resources over the USA and Europe because their strategy makes more sense--espcially to countries like Nigera and Angola.
From a religous weather it was the genocide in Rawanda (Christians vs Muslims) the Kosovo war (again Christians vs Muslims) or any Middle Eastern war (Jews and Christians vs Muslism)
Religion in addition to being useless in a modern world gives it followers endless permission to kill members of other religions. Less religon equals less war equals more world peace.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@robertsnj [quote] It is a bigger question than my brain can handle but if I had time to dig I would probably lean on the Brookings Institution and the Aspen Institute as think tank resources the most.
[/quote]
Those two are American think tanks since forever, and currently funded by donors whose values have been shaping US foreign policy through all the wars we fought to protect human rights and freedom. Finding peace thru war is crooked thinking.
[/quote]
Those two are American think tanks since forever, and currently funded by donors whose values have been shaping US foreign policy through all the wars we fought to protect human rights and freedom. Finding peace thru war is crooked thinking.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@robertsnj [quote] Sometimes from an economic idea feels non achieveable. If you work the equation backwards wars are often large scale competition for scare resources.
The world insterest in Afganistan has opium as an alluring factor
Russia's interest in Uraine has natural gas, ores and other tied to
The interest in Taiwan is around chipsets.
The Middle East has oil
I am not sure we can remove the root cause of competition for resources of value. [/quote]
If we work the equation backwards, all those conflicts were created by the US, the world's largest economy with a high per capita GDP. America is a land of abundant resources including human. We have fertile farmlands, massive amount of oil and coal, and innovative people whose technological inventions had modernized the world. We did not fight a 20 year war in Afghanistan for opium, nor were we after oil in our war and occupation in Iraq. Meddling with China over Taiwan inspite of our recognition that it is Chinese territory as stated in our "One China Policy", is wrong even if we needed chipsets. We can easily make our own, and better.
I have not covered our meddling in Ukraine. It's complicated. Russia has as much oil as the US or Saudi Arabia.
It is not about resources regardless of what American think tanks say.
The world insterest in Afganistan has opium as an alluring factor
Russia's interest in Uraine has natural gas, ores and other tied to
The interest in Taiwan is around chipsets.
The Middle East has oil
I am not sure we can remove the root cause of competition for resources of value. [/quote]
If we work the equation backwards, all those conflicts were created by the US, the world's largest economy with a high per capita GDP. America is a land of abundant resources including human. We have fertile farmlands, massive amount of oil and coal, and innovative people whose technological inventions had modernized the world. We did not fight a 20 year war in Afghanistan for opium, nor were we after oil in our war and occupation in Iraq. Meddling with China over Taiwan inspite of our recognition that it is Chinese territory as stated in our "One China Policy", is wrong even if we needed chipsets. We can easily make our own, and better.
I have not covered our meddling in Ukraine. It's complicated. Russia has as much oil as the US or Saudi Arabia.
It is not about resources regardless of what American think tanks say.