I can't discount the major premise originating this thread.
First, anyone who ever examined the topic of "causal analysis" will tell you that a single event or result may have multiple -- even interdependent causes.
Second, my appraisal of "average" voters and the manifestation of public opinion in "letters to the editor" leads me to a conclusion that most people only want to admit one cause for anything. The interplay between myth and elections can be as dangerous as the German election of 1932.
Third, before you dismiss the notion that "strategic mineral deposits" are causative in the strife between Israel and the Palestinians, you'd best look at history -- a good part of it intersecting American policy, American wars, American initiatives and American mistakes.
The Balfour Declarations carving up the Middle East derives from British intentions about oil, and thus give us the history through Saddam Hussein and afterward.
Hitler split the Wehrmacht and Panzer divisions prior to the Battle of Stalingrad: one part converging on that city, the other part rushing to take control of the Baku oil-fields. Revisit that region now, with the trouble in eastern Ukraine. Of course, some may argue that the German army provisioned itself through "foraging," but you'd also best examine the oil output history of Germany over a long period.
Then there was George Kennan's "strategic dogma" and call-to-arms against "World" Communism. Add the great "Yellow Peril" myth spawned by the Japanese "Southeast Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." What were Japan's interests with that euphemism, by the way? Certainly, the Australians were traumatized by "the Myth" -- their northern islands were actually invaded by the Japanese.
On the surface, those ideological motives drove us to war in Vietnam, even after the SEATO allies had abandoned the cause. But there were rumors of oil and mineral deposits in the South China Sea. Today, Vietnam produces oil, and there is conflict over . . . strategic mineral deposits in the South China Sea.
What about Cuba? Definitely, there was a great fear of a Soviet presence. But the missile deployments were actually a response to our own Atlas missiles deployed in Turkey -- close to Russia. Who was involved in "Operation Zapata" or the Bay of Pigs Invasion? There's sufficient evidence that a CIA "asset" -- founder of the Zapata Oil Company, congressman from Houston, RNC Chairman, CIA Director, Vice-President and then President -- financed the three ships, met with Cuban Exiles under CIA auspices.
Cuba is projected to become very rich in the next century, probably with risks similar to the Deep Horizon disaster of 2010.
Then there's Iran. On the surface, we're concerned about a theocracy of extremists, who think the Holocaust is a myth and bent on depriving Israel's right to exist. But ask any Iranian. The CIA overthrew Mossadegh in the early 1950's, replacing him with the Shah and the secret police known as SAVAK. The American people were told that Mossadegh was a socialist, bent on leaning toward Moscow. But the real motive has been explained as British desire to avoid paying royalties for oil extraction when the Iranian workers were being paid $0.60/diem. The deal-making involved American covert operations in Iran, and the British commitment to assist in the Korean War.
Anyone who'd read document declassifications and histories of the Cold War could conclude in the year 2000 what would unfold for the next 8 years -- with or without the 9/11 attack. Iraq holds the third largest oil reserve in the world, and the spigot had been cut to a trickle with sanctions. Two groups of conservatives had different opinions about the fruits of military intervention: neo-cons thought that the world price of oil would plummet, opening a new age of prosperity and cheap oil; the inner-circle of GOP oil-men and financiers wanted to control Iraqi oil, to keep the price at a relatively high level, and the latter prevailed.
At this point, I've become weary of explaining all this to any number of people. Folks really believe that the main issues in elections can be "abortion" or "socialism versus free-market solutions" or "I don't like his last name." One young woman working a 7/11 counter late at night after the 2000 election told me she voted for Bush because of "Clinton and that Monica thing."
And it doesn't matter of "Climate Change" is a myth, or that the costs are overblown. The extraction costs continue to rise, and the Earth has a finite supply. The Creationists and Bible-Thumpers deny that it took 200 million years to put that black goop in the ground. Lord knows how much of it we've put back into the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years.
If you could make energy costless or inexpensive (including the future costs unaccounted for regarding health, climate, agriculture and other things), politics would be clarified, more simple -- domestically and geopolitically.
First, anyone who ever examined the topic of "causal analysis" will tell you that a single event or result may have multiple -- even interdependent causes.
Second, my appraisal of "average" voters and the manifestation of public opinion in "letters to the editor" leads me to a conclusion that most people only want to admit one cause for anything. The interplay between myth and elections can be as dangerous as the German election of 1932.
Third, before you dismiss the notion that "strategic mineral deposits" are causative in the strife between Israel and the Palestinians, you'd best look at history -- a good part of it intersecting American policy, American wars, American initiatives and American mistakes.
The Balfour Declarations carving up the Middle East derives from British intentions about oil, and thus give us the history through Saddam Hussein and afterward.
Hitler split the Wehrmacht and Panzer divisions prior to the Battle of Stalingrad: one part converging on that city, the other part rushing to take control of the Baku oil-fields. Revisit that region now, with the trouble in eastern Ukraine. Of course, some may argue that the German army provisioned itself through "foraging," but you'd also best examine the oil output history of Germany over a long period.
Then there was George Kennan's "strategic dogma" and call-to-arms against "World" Communism. Add the great "Yellow Peril" myth spawned by the Japanese "Southeast Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." What were Japan's interests with that euphemism, by the way? Certainly, the Australians were traumatized by "the Myth" -- their northern islands were actually invaded by the Japanese.
On the surface, those ideological motives drove us to war in Vietnam, even after the SEATO allies had abandoned the cause. But there were rumors of oil and mineral deposits in the South China Sea. Today, Vietnam produces oil, and there is conflict over . . . strategic mineral deposits in the South China Sea.
What about Cuba? Definitely, there was a great fear of a Soviet presence. But the missile deployments were actually a response to our own Atlas missiles deployed in Turkey -- close to Russia. Who was involved in "Operation Zapata" or the Bay of Pigs Invasion? There's sufficient evidence that a CIA "asset" -- founder of the Zapata Oil Company, congressman from Houston, RNC Chairman, CIA Director, Vice-President and then President -- financed the three ships, met with Cuban Exiles under CIA auspices.
Cuba is projected to become very rich in the next century, probably with risks similar to the Deep Horizon disaster of 2010.
Then there's Iran. On the surface, we're concerned about a theocracy of extremists, who think the Holocaust is a myth and bent on depriving Israel's right to exist. But ask any Iranian. The CIA overthrew Mossadegh in the early 1950's, replacing him with the Shah and the secret police known as SAVAK. The American people were told that Mossadegh was a socialist, bent on leaning toward Moscow. But the real motive has been explained as British desire to avoid paying royalties for oil extraction when the Iranian workers were being paid $0.60/diem. The deal-making involved American covert operations in Iran, and the British commitment to assist in the Korean War.
Anyone who'd read document declassifications and histories of the Cold War could conclude in the year 2000 what would unfold for the next 8 years -- with or without the 9/11 attack. Iraq holds the third largest oil reserve in the world, and the spigot had been cut to a trickle with sanctions. Two groups of conservatives had different opinions about the fruits of military intervention: neo-cons thought that the world price of oil would plummet, opening a new age of prosperity and cheap oil; the inner-circle of GOP oil-men and financiers wanted to control Iraqi oil, to keep the price at a relatively high level, and the latter prevailed.
At this point, I've become weary of explaining all this to any number of people. Folks really believe that the main issues in elections can be "abortion" or "socialism versus free-market solutions" or "I don't like his last name." One young woman working a 7/11 counter late at night after the 2000 election told me she voted for Bush because of "Clinton and that Monica thing."
And it doesn't matter of "Climate Change" is a myth, or that the costs are overblown. The extraction costs continue to rise, and the Earth has a finite supply. The Creationists and Bible-Thumpers deny that it took 200 million years to put that black goop in the ground. Lord knows how much of it we've put back into the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years.
If you could make energy costless or inexpensive (including the future costs unaccounted for regarding health, climate, agriculture and other things), politics would be clarified, more simple -- domestically and geopolitically.