Should we take into consideration all that is going on in the middle east and the Asian theater, including N. Korea; we would have to question where is it leading. So much unrest, yet what is our role in all this and why are we taking so much of this on to us as the peacekeeper of nations?
Perhaps, we can think of it in a different way other than, for humanitarian reasons. Think of it as an economic stance; our trade with Japan, S. Korea and our oil supplies from the Middle East. Also, the value of the dollar must play a role in that. One might say how does the value of the dollar fall into that equation. It stems around the Petroleum Industries and how they trade. See most all of them trade in the American dollar as the fundamental currency. However, if they were to say we will only sell oil for gold, then the value of the American dollar would bottom out to some degree. Our interest in S. Korea is similar except we trade for commodities and goods the same way we trade with Japan. The US has become less of a industrial nation and rely heavily on other trading countries for basic supplies. When those supplies are interrupted our markets decline.
Thinking of it on the humanitarian side, war is something that doesn't benefit humanitarian issues to well, however it has achieved some strides with being able to bring new help to areas that didn't have before. However, the areas are normally left in shambles after conflict and take allot of resources to build their basic living structure back. The benefit of war to relieve tensions of from foreign aggression is one of the most costly decisions to make for an intervening nation.
Did they suffer from the same issues as we do today, back during the biblical days? Yes and No, the tensions of war still existed even back then. As armies grew stronger other nations or populations became frighten that they would become a future target. So many of those countries developed heavily on their military strength to counter the opposition, however many other population lacked man power and perhaps battle proven troops. Whereas, normally the invading countries were already familiar with tactics of war and knew to plan out their attacks, ahead of their next objective. Much like today, they would need scouts to go out and retrieve accurate data that could be used against the enemy. The similarity that they had with what we have today is; during the time while preparing for war, it took all their resources to gain enough strength to fight, and to provide for the families. That was true on both sides, while the invading country already under most instances had made those preparations and was determined to accomplish the task they set out to do. It was virtually, a total loss if they couldn't defeat their enemy because they relied on taken the spoils and food from their enemies and would not be able to recover from a loss and no supplies left. In the biblical days they killed just about all of the population of those they took over and the rest that might have been spared from death were enslaved. To their benefit, they we not out much in terms of money for the war effort as long as, they were winning. It benefited their king at the time, because all the land was theirs and the people were required to serve that king and pay their dues to the king.
Can anything be learned from the past that would benefit us in the present or future. With all that we have seen from past experiences history should not have to be repeated, but so often of times it is repeated. The difference is in the strategics of how we carry out plans. But, if we could ever get it down to a art perhaps we could avoid the tragedies of the past all together, it may mean intervention and it may mean diplomatic discussions to bring societies into alignment. The stance of a one world government will never be the answer to all problems, as seen in the past with the 3rd Reich trying to conquer everyone and the Roman Empire of the old days. The only thing we can do today is strive for consensus with other nations that this world need stability and limits to aggression will be defined, especially with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Else-wise, we become targets of the next empire seeking out to conquer us as did the Roman Empire of the olden day. Another method to control world stability is to have one world currency where nobody can force a monopoly on their particular currency over another. Still we will have rich nations and poorer nations, but that is, just how it is. We will not be able to abolish military power around the world, and their will always be someone willing to challenge civility, unless we are all destroyed and start over again with one pretense maintained under unity. We will have to wait till the end for that.
Perhaps, we can think of it in a different way other than, for humanitarian reasons. Think of it as an economic stance; our trade with Japan, S. Korea and our oil supplies from the Middle East. Also, the value of the dollar must play a role in that. One might say how does the value of the dollar fall into that equation. It stems around the Petroleum Industries and how they trade. See most all of them trade in the American dollar as the fundamental currency. However, if they were to say we will only sell oil for gold, then the value of the American dollar would bottom out to some degree. Our interest in S. Korea is similar except we trade for commodities and goods the same way we trade with Japan. The US has become less of a industrial nation and rely heavily on other trading countries for basic supplies. When those supplies are interrupted our markets decline.
Thinking of it on the humanitarian side, war is something that doesn't benefit humanitarian issues to well, however it has achieved some strides with being able to bring new help to areas that didn't have before. However, the areas are normally left in shambles after conflict and take allot of resources to build their basic living structure back. The benefit of war to relieve tensions of from foreign aggression is one of the most costly decisions to make for an intervening nation.
Did they suffer from the same issues as we do today, back during the biblical days? Yes and No, the tensions of war still existed even back then. As armies grew stronger other nations or populations became frighten that they would become a future target. So many of those countries developed heavily on their military strength to counter the opposition, however many other population lacked man power and perhaps battle proven troops. Whereas, normally the invading countries were already familiar with tactics of war and knew to plan out their attacks, ahead of their next objective. Much like today, they would need scouts to go out and retrieve accurate data that could be used against the enemy. The similarity that they had with what we have today is; during the time while preparing for war, it took all their resources to gain enough strength to fight, and to provide for the families. That was true on both sides, while the invading country already under most instances had made those preparations and was determined to accomplish the task they set out to do. It was virtually, a total loss if they couldn't defeat their enemy because they relied on taken the spoils and food from their enemies and would not be able to recover from a loss and no supplies left. In the biblical days they killed just about all of the population of those they took over and the rest that might have been spared from death were enslaved. To their benefit, they we not out much in terms of money for the war effort as long as, they were winning. It benefited their king at the time, because all the land was theirs and the people were required to serve that king and pay their dues to the king.
Can anything be learned from the past that would benefit us in the present or future. With all that we have seen from past experiences history should not have to be repeated, but so often of times it is repeated. The difference is in the strategics of how we carry out plans. But, if we could ever get it down to a art perhaps we could avoid the tragedies of the past all together, it may mean intervention and it may mean diplomatic discussions to bring societies into alignment. The stance of a one world government will never be the answer to all problems, as seen in the past with the 3rd Reich trying to conquer everyone and the Roman Empire of the old days. The only thing we can do today is strive for consensus with other nations that this world need stability and limits to aggression will be defined, especially with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Else-wise, we become targets of the next empire seeking out to conquer us as did the Roman Empire of the olden day. Another method to control world stability is to have one world currency where nobody can force a monopoly on their particular currency over another. Still we will have rich nations and poorer nations, but that is, just how it is. We will not be able to abolish military power around the world, and their will always be someone willing to challenge civility, unless we are all destroyed and start over again with one pretense maintained under unity. We will have to wait till the end for that.
Comments
Post a Comment