Remember the first `war on terror' to avoid mistakes in this one

[dArKeR]

In June, NATO's leaders commemorated the 60th anniversary of D-Day, the allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France. Last month they passed up the opportunity to mark the 90th anniversary of the start of World War I, which led to calamities that echoed until the 20th century's end. But the lessons of the Great War are no less important today, particularly for the US.

The causes of World War I have long baffled the public and historians. Europe was at the peak of its economic power relative to the rest of the world. Peace among the major European countries had reigned more or less continuously for decades. A technology boom was revolutionizing, indeed globalizing, the world economy. For increasingly rich Europeans, the summer of 1914 seemed a peaceful, lazy time. It turned out to be their last real peace for decades.

That July, terrorists in Bosnia assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Habsburg Empire. Austria responded by invading Serbia, Bosnia's neighbor and an "upstart" Slavic power. Russia mobilized to support Serbia, while Germany launched a "pre-emptive" war against France and Russia, invading France via Belgium. Great Britain came to the defense of Belgium and France. By September's end, a general conflagration was under way.

But why did the pieces of the puzzle fall into place as they did? Was it bad luck, miscalculation or bureaucratic error?

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/07/2003201985

(In my opinion, Kerry should be equating Bush to a nut who could start WWIII and/or start a nuclear detonation. Just as was done to Goldwater.)

[Tamyrlin79]

1. A difference...

"In my opinion, Kerry should be equating Bush to a nut who could start WWIII and/or start a nuclear detonation. Just as was done to Goldwater."

The problem is that Bush has had his finger on the button for four years now and it hasn't happened (yet). Goldwater never was in that position. You can make such an argument, but it is more complicated than if Bush were running for the first time, like Goldwater.

[dArKeR]

2. Andy D: Oil and World War III

I believe that there are some very ruthless international power brokers striking out at Russia today. Their terrorist brinkmanship witnessed in Russia today may very well  lead to WWIII. I do not believe the Chechens would be so stupid as to carry out such terrible atrocities knowing the terrible repercussions of such brutal acts of terror. It just doesn't make any sense. I could be wrong though!
 
What does make sense though is that President Putin has neutralized the western power brokers who wanted Yukos to fall into their hands. Why is that so important? The clue maybe an article by energy expert Matt Simmons published in Petroleum News at the beginning of August 2004 http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/238338932.shtml in which he states the world may face a cataclysm in 3-4 years time.  The reason being that Saudi Arabia's massive oil wells may have peaked and are on an irreversible and sharp decline.
 
I believe President Putin knows this and has acted accordingly. Afterall, Russia like the US has many spy satellites passing around the globe. They can easily gauge oil production in the Middle East and elsewhere. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out what is going on on the ground. Activity in the oil fields can easily be measured by satellites and analysed by experts. No doubt President Putin and other leaders are kept abreast of energy developments around the globe.
 
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/386/14059_oil.html