H&I* Fires 21 SEP 2007

This economic determinism bender around here is making people loopy, methinks. So, in VDH's world, oil at $30/brl didn't allow terrorists and hostile to US ME nations to acquire just about every weapon they wanted then? Bollucks. Didn't allow them to conduct ops pretty much wherever and whenever they wanted? We weren't being 'bankrupted' at $30/brl when it was paying for Iran to buy all kinds of SU and Mig fighters, Syria to buy similar gear, etc.? THis just seems like forcing everything to go thru the funnel of economic determinism(just like Barnett always does). That, hey, if we were on a different energy economy(say hydrogen) that they wouldn't resort to cyberstrategies if they wanted an economic weapon? Nope. Petrodollars. That's the key. Just follow the money as it explains everything. Really, this has gone nutty. If it wasn't petroleum it'd be something like Sn(Tin) fueling terrorism and ME nations hostile to the US, giving them the capability to. No resources? Even Afghanistan has found something from which terrs, and the people, are finding ways to make many(in a place most people would otherwise say has no real natural resources). And this utterly ignores a dirty little secret: big nations give foreign aide in situations like this to facilitate this kind of stuff. Hence, wow, oil is soooo damn important in the scheme of things isn't it? I mean, the Sov's couldn't have funded and sent aide to all those countries in the ME and East Asia without all those big petrodollars they were raking in(when they were having trouble keeping their own fuel supply working AND having to import wheat because they listen to farkin' Lysenko). Nah. Like Bader-Meinhoff wasn't capable of doing their thing, in support of Palestinian terrorist groups at times, on whatever they got from donors and robbing banks(and their thing was trying three times to hit an airliner with an RPG in W. Germany). Aum Shinrykyo? Nah. None of this matters because it all comes down to macro economics. Never you mind that modern arms were finding there way into the Levant long before there was economic interests there, any economic interests. Place had strategic value to the Ottoman's but economic? BS. It was a money pit for them, but they kept it anyways. Like the history of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Arabian Peninsula isnt' riddled with wars and invasions before petroleum even really became important globally? And this is between nations like Tsarist Russia and England? Okay, you might say that from the Brit perspective it was about economics(protection thereof), but from the Russian perspective, extending you borders and military into areas of absolutely no economic value for invasions you never planned or executed on British economic interests? Fine. Economics uber-alles. It's the Unified Theory of Warfare. Like Iran hasn't been able to acquire whatever they wanted (much less Libya) with major and serious embargoes limiting the amount of petroleum they could extract and sell. Yup, petrodollars are weapons and the major reason for why they all have weapons with the capability to conduct operations against the US. Yup. Yup. Hell, our arming of Pakistan(and Turkey) was all about directly securing some vital economic interest too, wasn't it? Couldn't have just been a move to hold the Sov's in place. It's all about economics. The UNified Theory of Warfare. Nope, no other causes, move along, no point in looking because all you have to do is follow the money(says the voice on the phone). I don't buy Unified Theory of Warfare(i.e. economic determinism). Never have and never will. There's too many reasons for why people go to war(what vital economic interest was there in the Falklands? Was the UK going to run short of wool?). In just about every situation where people claim economics was teh deciding factor the counter factual of 'There was more money to be made by siding with than against' is never explored(Try WW2 without the US embargo against Japan, which doesn't lead to massive rationing and 1/20th of every dollar earned in the US from 1945-1960 being spent to rebuild Europe.). Not buying this thesis of it being predominately about oil, whether it is from Saint VDH or anyone else. Oh, and for some reason the link isn't working. It comes up with the same URL for me as well when I went to NRO, but sends me to a write email screen with NRO's web address in the to field. Weird.

One thing, and I'll reply more succinctly promptly, is that Bader Meinhoff was funded by the east German Stasi in no small part. Further, if the Cold War was not an economic war, why did the Soviets/Communists spend so much time trying influence allies in strategic places? I mean, they were both militarily and economically strategic. As to your "what if we had a different economy base" question, yes, the answer is, if something else was to take the place of oil, then it too would be a target. You don't just defeat your enemy politically or militarily without also defeating them economically. As long as a nation has access to resources and has the ability to produce the weapons it requires, purchase that which it does not have and pay for the fuel (whether that was mules, horses and feed or steel, oil and diesel fuel) to move its army from one place to the other, it still has the ability to maneuver and fight or simply project power over a greater area. Talking about oil simplifies the situation down, but, if you recall the other pieces I've written on the subject, strategic interdiction of food, clothing, technology, minerals, etc, etc, etc has the same effect. In fact, it is simply the modern version of sieging a castle on a global scale. Or, if you will, the cavalry cutting the main army's supply lines. Such areas, I concluded on review of the map of the ancient "Caliphate" that they wish to establish, includes the Suez Canal, Gibalter, Straits of Hormuz and the Malaysia/Philippines. The Ottoman Empire did not take control of these areas because they simply wanted to spread Islam around the globe, but because, even in their day, it represented the most heavily traded, enduring economic routes that they required to establish and maintain, not only the physical control of their empire, but the financial control. While I do not doubt that the current Islamist primary goal is to set up an ideological state. However, the massive state they envision, as I previously noted, cannot exist on "donations" and illegal drugs and smuggling forever. We're talking about over a billion subjects who do not all live in caves. Nor can they defend these massive borders with nothing but guerrillas with RPGs and suicide bombers. If they ever hope to obtain this state, they will have to move into legitimate trade, even if it is with people that is not the west. China, for instance, would demand cold hard currency. In the end, war has never simply been about politics or massive armies maneuvering to kill each other. It has and always will be the ability of one or the other to defend or obtain the necessary resources. Just because it has changed from a massive army movement to obtain or defend said resources to a massive army rolling around and, one amounts to light cavalry, repeatedly hitting the supply lines. I agree with you in the interim, the Jihadists don't need to take and control oil or other economic resources vitally important to the west. They don't have to control much land. They can hit us with little stabbing wounds here and there, bleeding us to death over the long run. Sink a ship in the Suez Canal and find out what happens to our JIT (just in time inventory) economy and that of the globe when ships now have to transit thousands of miles to circumvent Cape Hope. As you once infamously said to me, use a ruler. How many days would it take to transit these routes? How much fuel? What would the price of goods be? It is why we are fighting "pirates" off of Somalia and in the Straits of Malacca. It is a real danger to our economy. Blow up a freighter in Singapore and see what happens. That is not to say that in this war, there is not the battle fields of politcs/propaganda or the military front that are important. But, to ignore the economic front because someone links it to oil and it does not fit some ideological paradigm seems to me to leave out an important part of the battle. It is, in fact, as if you were leaving your supply line and baggage train to be sacked over and over again, pretending it will not effect your army in the field. maybe they can just forage off the land?

...to ignore the economic front because someone links it to oil and it does not fit some ideological paradigm seems to me to leave out an important part of the battle. The problem in a nutshell is that the paradigm-pushers don't see it as part of the battle -- except the one they're fighting to regain the Executive Mansion. Over the course of the past three years, I have become pretty well convinced that the firm of Reid, Pelosi and Associates are now so blinded by their own rhetoric that they are oblivious to anything that can't be turned into a 10-second talking point aimed at November, 2008.

I'm going to get to your longwinded answer in a second, but I would point out that even Hanson did not say that the Islamist motivation was only oil or economy. Speaking of skimming, did you read it? and yeah, I said I would answer your long answer with a long answer and that was a quick off the cuff. Thus, you are correct, I skimmed. So sue me. ;) Stand by for fire.

I mean, the Sov's couldn't have funded and sent aide to all those countries in the ME and East Asia without all those big petrodollars they were raking in(when they were having trouble keeping their own fuel supply working AND having to import wheat because they listen to farkin' Lysenko). Nah.

Yes. Look at Russia today and where it's economic interests lie and, in fact, their very survival. Oil, natural gas and ports for import and export. I noted previously that Russia historically has attempted aggressive expansion for the very purpose of economic security and improvement. Even Peter the Great knew this. Although, it was obviously not oil at the time. Trade goods were more closely associated with agriculture since the industrial age had not occured yet, but it was definitely the same issue. Today, it is simply oil as the economic base. Russians then and now understood that, without resources, the ability to trade and a strong economy, the ability to hold together their empire, to patrol and protect their borders, would be devastated. In fact, they would fall apart as a nation, as they eventually did when the ruble crashed and burned and the USSR was no more. Of course, ideology fueled "movements", but as long as the state held the economic power and that economic power was just enough to maintain the population or control it, it held the power of authority (military and police), the state remained intact. See also Stalin's engineered famines and starvations to control the population while simultaneously giving much money and resources to his "loyal" districts. Or, Saddam keeping the Shia in economic straights while providing same resources and money to "loyalists". Or, the poor Sunni tribes in Anbar who had little to offer beyond their ability to smuggle in goods and lookouts in a far flung desert. They enjoyed "autonomy" in as much as he did not interfere with their underground economy so long as they continued to perform their limited duties. If they did not, he could have easily crushed them by cutting off their smuggling routes and driving them from their lands as he did the Shia. Or, my most recent favorite, why did the Sunni turn on AQ in Iraq? Was it simply because they were cruel and inhumane, ideological nutjobs? Or, was it because they began killing the sheiks when they began complaining and fighting with the AQ who were trying to cut them out as the middleman in their smuggling rings so they could limit their cash exposure (a cash crunch both Zarqawi and Zawahiri discussed) and, of course, the possibility of being outed for money. And the anbar sheiks suddenly are loved by the Shia central government who are now cognizant of the fact that they will not be able to hold the Sunni to their second class status in revenge for their years of servitude because they just found a 100bn bbl reserve of oil in the desert? And now the Shia government is afraid that, if they go federalist, they won't get much of a share of the revenues and they won't be able to economically control these pesky nomads.

accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

And they do that because they are "comfortable", economically. They are surviving and that survival is less costly in a cost to benefit ration than the actual battle. But lets look at little more closely at our own revolution. Stamp Act. Boston Tea Party. No taxation without representation. Major Complaints Among the Founding Fathers:

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

In many ways, this was about the survival of the people and their freedom, yet without the freedom of trade or commerce, their survival and advancement was limited and they could never entertain the idea of demanding the power of legislature and representatives without the power of wealth which would make them partners in the kingdom. Without economic power, there is no political power. Stand by for additions.

So, fine, we use some other energy source other than fossil, we're still going to be buying large volumes of the stuff so people can lather on Oil-of-Olay or take their Viagra. So neener-neener on ending dependence on foreign petroleum

Yeah, actually, I have been arguing that for an eternity with the "disengage" crowd. It would really suck if they went to the hospital and couldn't get that all important blood transfusion because their were not IV catheters made from oil by products. yeah..I will argue passionately, but, I will tell you when I am "mad". Ask Owen if he ever comes back. LOL continuing.

Levant long before there was economic interests there, any economic interests. Place had strategic value to the Ottoman's but economic? BS. It was a money pit for them, but they kept it anyways.

Okay...I think you should retract that one. Acre? how many ports does the "Levant" have? Trade routes? Why did the Romans want it so long ago? Cause they wanted to own a carppy piece of desert with brown people who kept revolting for the purpose of training their legions for much more important battles? How about Salt? You know, once upon a time, salt was the basis of economy? No refrigeration meant long term survivability depended on salting and storing food stuffs? Among other things.

You're also glossing over that the East Germans, much less The USSR, had serious hard currency problems(not to mention the hard core internal fights over whether or not terrorism was acceptable to true Lennist-Marxist thought).

yes, they did have hard currency problems. What did the East German's want from West Germany? Ideological unity? Why did Hitler want Alsace-Lorraine? Look, when you view a country's territory, you are viewing their economic survival. Lack of water, minerals or arable land for agriculture determines their survivability as well as their ability to develop goods for trade and improve the economy. No economy, no military to defend the land. No land, no country. Not forgetting of course, that we were at economic war with them our free trade and supply side economics trumped any controlled prices economy any day. They simply could not compete. East German's wanted the economic power of the West. Read the history. First thing East German's wanted when the wall came down? Unified currency. If the USSR could implant and support ideological partners that would willingly place price controls on their goods and benefit, the more they could support, the more they had access too without competing with the US. However, at the bottom, there was the choice between low range price control that limited the possibility of economic growth for the country and individuals vs. the possibility of a growing "supply and demand" trade that, in the end, was much more steady as a growth economy, providing wealth to individuals and thus power. Who, by the way, funded the counter communist guerrillas besides the US in these nations? Wealthy and middle class business men. Read 'em and weep.

I am basically talking to myself, but I did promise a nice long response to Ry. I didn't want him to think I was "skimming".

They were also helped, immensely, and not just Bader-Meinhoff but the entire slew of violent socialists like the Italians had, by 'passing the hat' and informal economic relationships. The IRA is a classic example. The Code Pink issue is another($600K from a charity? That's serious money to terrs.)Renditions to Mexico? HOly Chit that's almost a third of the Mexican economy! Don't try to tell me that charity or the 'Rich Uncle' can't keep a nation afloat when it frickin' already does.

First of all, the only one of those that you may have a mark on is Mexico. We keep talking around in circles. I admit that Islamists, underground movements, like separatists, can exist for a long time on "donations" and illegal trade, but they are still practicing economics for survival, whatever the base of their economy might be. But eventually, as I noted in our many previous conversations, they all want to set up their own controlling government. All of these movements, even so called anarchists, always believe that there will be a central government that will simply enforce their ideological views, even if it is anarchy. Even the Islamist. but, before they can do that, they have hold the land and be physically secure. They have to be able to provide a stable base of economics to provide for their subjects and maintain that security. As the state grows, so do their economic needs. It is one thing to provide this economic need through illegal means like drugs and guns when the financial responsibilities are limited, but it is another to be financially responsible for the security and economic existence of a nation. Particularly one so large as that they envision including some rather large and highly populated emirates or states. As for your "Mexico" remark, I think of them in two contexts. First, prior to Reagan, with the various monarchies, revolutions and flirts with Communism and Socialism, I really believe we had no interest in Mexico as a developed nation. In fact, we would have viewed their economic development as a threat. I think Louisiana Purchase, Annex Texas and California, etc in context to why we would not want Mexico to prosper by good trade with us or anyone else. While their continued wars was somewhat of a threat, I think that is the purpose of that vast expanse of nothingness in Texas: one gigantic gate to armies of the south. Later, it was simply about having the economic superiority that gave us the military superiority to ignore them. It wasn't until much later when the expansion of communism was so rampant, that we began to consider the danger of a poor nation to the south. It's really only then that we began to consider their economic viability. Mexico does have an economy. the fact that we are the "rich uncle" is neither here nor there. That is not a good economic source, nor one any state should or would consider as a major source. It leaves them vulnerable to the demands, the power and to the stability of said uncles. Mexico has tied their existence to ours and its not a bad trade, although, as noted by many a Mexican law on land ownership, etc they fear their independence would be destroyed by an over flow of American companies with their revenue, tax and lobby money leading to virtual take over. so, at they have come to an accommodation with us. We provide them security and economy, they stay the poor cousin and we get cheap labor to keep inflation from going crazy and allows us to compete. We are the Rich Uncle who is imminently stable. The Rich Uncles of AQ are not so stable, even with their petro dollars and such. They can be arrested and bombed out of existence, including Iran. any nation, particularly a start up nation, that tries to exist on such a pretext without a stable economy and economically AND militarily powerful "Rich Uncle" would be the most unstable nation on the planet. rife with intrigue and revolutionaries just waiting to be bombed out of existence if they ticked off the other "Rich Uncle" Sam (unless, of course, such an uncle was weakened with political and economic cancer, then their Rich Uncle could be safer, more stable and so could they). So, I have to say that Mexico is an exception that stands on our economic, political and military shoulders. You also mention the IRA. Sure, they had plenty of rich and not so rich uncles, but eventually, both Britain and the Sinn Fein decided that the economic and political benefits of power sharing was much more viable than continued scrounging for support from said uncles, particularly after certain financial laws here in the US started to put the kaibosh and their many mini-rich uncles cash flow. IN other words, when Sinn Finn could realize some of their dreams as a "nation" and governance, the uncles were no longer a viable source. did all of their sympathizers and members imagine living off of their uncles forever or did they want to realize their own economic and political power? It's Mao "On Guerrilla War". They followed the path exactly.

As long as there's a major player someone out there who doesn't like us there'll be something like under the table donations from said major player.

Yes. As long as they are not a "nation" but roaming bands of criminals, that's good. As a nation? Not so good, particularly if, eventually, they want to realize their own power and nation. Do you think that the Islamist want to find themselves beholding to Iran or a bunch of "uncles" forever? They want their own Caliphate with their own rules and their own power. They want power over these "uncles". If the uncles are lucky, they'll get to live in it without being swallowed whole. Let's say, on the off hand, that the Islamists take over Saudi Arabia. Do you really think that they would simply stop pumping oil out and stop all trade with all countries, thus cutting off their noses to spite their faces? Or, do you think they would use this economic power to attempt to realize the rest of their dreams? We know the answer already because Osama and Zawahiri both issued directives at one point that these resources not be harmed beyond repair because the Caliphate would need it. I think, after this long discussion, they answered the question for me. The only reason they contemplated harming it recently (recall the 172 "radicals" that were rounded up in the Saudi desert with a huge cache of arms and explosives ready to blow up the giant oil complex), was because they felt that it's continued existence at this time was more damaging than any usefulness it could hold for the future. In fact, by taking that off the table at first, they took away an extremely powerful weapon. I have to say, looking at the numbers of Saudis that were traveling to Iraq for jihad and that eventually dwindled away this year, the jihadists broke their truce with the royals and were highly damaged by that raid and subsequent activities of the security apparatus. Of course, tied with the Sunni Iraqi rejection and the threat to Syria that the advent of terrorists through their borders was about to tick us off badly helped as well. But, remember that, the potential economic destruction of Saudi Arabia by these internal forces, forced them to do what all of our appeals had not.

I have yet to cede the field of battle! But damn I'm I tired, and tired of fighting with Kat. Exhausting work. Til the morrow, when I shall continue to make an @55 of myself!

First, let's not take liberties with history. Argentina at the time of the Falklands was a right wing gov't supported by the US against the Red Spread(TM) in Latin America, and the coup forces weren't that keen on Communism either(being Peronists). So it wasn't Grenada or Nigeria where the Brits went in to halt a geopolitical bit of momentum by the Global Soviet. The devil is always in the details. More broadly I would agree. Actions taken by the West that isn't in such good lights now didn't just happen just for, how does Bill say it?, "Chits and giggles." On that I agree, but not how the Falklands is being used here. Britain was most definitely not fighting to counter communism by going to defend the Falklands. Even the Argentinians who dreamed up the plan of taking the Falklands/Malivinas back don't list economics as a motivator. No, they claim it was a nice bit of what's known as 'Periclean strategy' where you start a war to get people un-interested in domestic politics(the original Periclean Strategy having been claimed to be started to protect Pericles from an investigation about siphoning off money during a major construction move by Athens). That should give one pause about claiming all war can be explained in terms of economic motivators. Neither side saw economic benefit in going to war, neither side had economic interests on the line, neither side saw the land as more than a political prop, but yet a war was fought and a goodly number of men died fighting it. Which is why I invoke crystal field theory when dealing with economic determinism. There's exceptions, lots of them, and so many that it becomes a real convoluted mess to keep straight why it applies in full here but not here, or only partially here but not there, and..... It has its applications. LIke CFT was useful in explaining the magnetic properties of some things, worthless for others, but was the only tool we had until MO theory came around so too is economic determinism good at some situations and the worst possible choice in others. But mostly I have to be Inigo Montoya with regards to the Falklands. "I don't think it means what you think it means." (Chit, I'm sooo going to be in trouble when Jess wakes up to find me still in front of the computer.) "As noted, I did not say that oil was the only method of economic warfare or for their own economic survivability, just that, today, oil is the base of economy just as agriculture and mining were once the base or spices, gold, etc. It is ever changing." Al's going to be pissed about all the quasi-Fisking goin' 'round here. Oh, well, I have to at least attempt to get into bed before Jess wakes up. Frying pan to noggin no feel good. I think you're missing the point I'm rather jerkily trying to convey here. Economic disruption is a means to an end. Not the end itself. FOllowing the money is a means to an end and not an end of itself. The ports on the Med side of the Levant were taken by Alexander not to deny their economic value to the Persians, but instead for their logistical value in tying him back to Greece. The economic value, while not nothing, was simply a bonus. The economic hurt was a peripheral. Alexander bypassed many important economic targets in his march towards the Tigris/Euphrates river valley. He did so because the economic lever has only limited utility. The theory that pushed LeMay and Harris into believing that bombing population centers was proved at least partially in error. While it did a decent job of wrecking the economy it didn't end the war cheaply or break the will of the German people. Ancient and modern examples of how pressing on the economic lever doesn't do much of anything for a conflict because economics is only a means to an end. Breaking the economy is not overthrow of the opposing gov't or bringing him into line with your will. Following the money has only limited value in war at the level we're talking about(one could talk about logistics as being an economy---as Kat has already alluded to in talking about attacking lines of communications and supply depots). Where did economic reasoning work? Cutting your opponent off from his Magazine comes to mind. Operation Anaconda and *ahem* **Sherman's March to the Sea** being some othr fine examples where economics was the key to victory. The difference is in looking at who the enemy is and what it is they want to be. The Confederacy wanted to be a very modern nation and thought about war in terms of in the Napoleanic style. So, yes, it did work against them. Wouldn't work against the Persians, and didn't against the Nazis. It depends on who we're talking about. "Okay...I think you should retract that one. Acre? how many ports does the "Levant" have? Trade routes? Why did the Romans want it so long ago? Cause they wanted to own a carppy piece of desert with brown people who kept revolting for the purpose of training their legions for much more important battles?" Nope, stand by it. Not just to be a punk either. In the age of sail and steamship the Levant lost almost all value. Was economic backwater. It cost more for Johnny Turkey to garrison the place than he could get out of it. Economic determists cannot explain why the Ottoman Empire, the 'sick man of Europe', was capable of fighting on or even coming to the fight at all with the crap economy it had. The Levant had lost all real economic value, prior to the discovery of petroleum there, because it was a whole lot faster, cheaper, and more efficient to send it all by sea. portage the cargo across a small part of Sinai(where Suez is now, if memory serves), and then by ship on off to Europe. No longer needed the 'silk road'. No longer was the necessity or even boon it had been for quite a bit before that. But in WW1 the only value it had was strategic----to get at the Turks and put them out of the war by owning it. Zero economic value. Economics does not explain the value of attacking it(control of the Dardenells may have an economic impact). And let's not forget that it really only is small portions of the Levant that had any economic value, at any point in history including ancient times. Antioch and such. More than quite a bit of that land was useless for a very long time---which explains why the critical mass of population necessary for a capitalistic, or even industrial, society to emerge there, at least is one reason for why. "How about Salt? You know, once upon a time, salt was the basis of economy? No refrigeration meant long term survivability depended on salting and storing food stuffs?" Absolutely true. So? Was the LEvant the only place salt could be gathered, or mining the only way? No other sources that were easier to hold onto? It is a true statement, salt has played an immense role in history. but still, so? There's copper mines, tin mines, and other workable metal mines there----except they were too hard to work because the conditions sucked massively and other sources existed that were closer to home for many nations(the nations that bordered for sure). Little to no economic value because of the effort expended was not recovered by what was taken out. Economic money pit. "Now you're slipping into the "paradigm of singularity" as if the Falklands were in a vacuum. " Nope, just taking economic determinism at its face. If economics is the core of all wars then some major economic factor should stick out prominently with the Falklands. There is none. None of the island chains that the Falklands war was fought over sits strategically on anyone's SLOC nor provided a major source of trade for either nation. If one claims that economics is at the root of every war then there better well be one in every war. There is none in the Falklands. (Gawd, when did I become my flesh and blood older brother?) "The non-vacuum you ignored was the expansion of communism into South America supported by the Soviets which would eventually interfere with the greater trade Britain realized among the South American nations. They needed to appear capable of defending their trade and nominal economic allies so the USSR and their ideological adherents down in the jungles wouldn't get to uppity." Again, don't be overly liberal with history. Monroe Doctrine? That S. America was largely seen as the US' balliwick? If that is true then why was the UK doing the exact opposite by removing just about everything of the RN from the region? Could it be that the UK didn't need to do that because someone else was already doing it(namely us), or that such a rationale is quite simply untrue of the situation? "Why did Hitler want Alsace-Lorraine?" Because it made a nice vector to attack into France with maybe? Just maybe? Remember, I'm the guy who says that economics can be a factor, but isn't always nor is it always the main factor. I'm not amorphic and having no intellectual ground to defend, but this isn't getting at my position at all. Hitler had many reasons for going after Alsace-Loraine. Why did Hitler want Belgium? Was he going to supplement the industrial power he was getting out of the Rhine River Valley by taking it? Or did it simply serve a purely military strategic purpose? So waging war against Belgium at that point had no economic point whatsoever then? The Chinese have MANY reasons for going after Taiwan. One of them, yes, being economic. Taiwan is a major high quality electronics producer. They could use that. But, mostly, it is for national pride. To right a wrong they've suffered for CENTURIES. Hell, even when the Portugese held it around 1600(with nobody like a mainland Chinese anywhere to be found on the rock) it belonged to The Middle Kingdom and it was only the damned Europeans, upstart fools, who denied it to them(see, the CHinese sailed all over the Far East and so it's all ours! Bwahahahaha!). No, really, that is a comical take on their reasoning but at the core it is---we went there first, it belongs to us, and you guys just denied us our property. That was the reasoning behind the validity of Argentina to invade the Falklands. Land has purpose. It can also be useless. Various people have shown control of people is more important than control of land. Yes, some land is of critical value. I don't deny that. But if Arizona was to claim all of Death Valley not a Californian would complain about it---welcome to it. Only certain bits of land are of any real economic value. There's a difference between the perception of being in charge and capable and legitimate for a gov't, and economic value. Someone could blockade Oregon for a century and it wouldn't make a difference. Blockade California? That's different. Don't mistake the need for perception of validity gained by maintaining integrity with economics. The two are not the same. (Chit. That's all I'm giong to be able to do tonight.) And John's still a hater. [Am not. Punk. - the Armorer] (Are too.--ry)