mhaze,

theres a perfectly logical, yet far more complicated explanation as to why 'democracies' have never fought each other, and it too has everything to do economics and geopolitics

the only thing resembling democracies are the nations of western europe, the US, Canada, Oz and NZ, Japan.

At the end of WWII all these nations picked, (or were pushed) into choosing a side in the emerging global order, i.e communism or capitalism.

The Marshall plan, while no doubt being beneficial to the millions of people in Europe, was also about solidifying american economic and military supremacy in the region.

democracy, or at least, the veneer of democracy, was an important part of alligning yourself with the West, but the military and economic ties, particuarly between the US and Western Europe were far more important than free and fair elections

I think this link will show how globalisation is more likely to start wars than prevent them.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id

Chris,
I was wondering when people would start to notice that water will be “the next big thing”.

Coca cola recognised years ago that the sales of soft drink products will soon be overtaken by bottled water.

I’ve been watching water supply developments since an incident in 2001 where the World Bank got Bolivia to privatise it’s water supply with catastrophic results but this global trend has been going on since at least 1992.

Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human population growth. According to the United Nations, more than one billion people already lack access to fresh drinking water. If current trends persist, by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise by 56 percent more than the amount of water that is currently available.
Multinational corporations recognize these trends and are trying to monopolize water supplies around the world. Monsanto, Bechtel, and other global multinationals are seeking control of world water systems and supplies.

By 2014, three private companies will control over 70 percent of Europe and North America’s water supplies. The water supply market in the USA alone is worth in excess of $90 billion per year.

The World Bank has been working actively behind the scenes pressuring governments to privatise their supplies and underwriting the private companies to maintain their profit margins. A 2000 review of IMF loans in 40 countries found that 12 had loan conditions requiring some form of water privatisation. This trend has been increasing ever since.

Why? It can’t be for reasons of efficiency and conservation because the track record of these companies in those areas has been appalling.
It can only be for corporate greed and power.

Should we be transforming a scarce resource such as clean drinking water into a basic saleable commodity?

Remember this when some politician suggests that we must privatise our water supplies and get the private sector to finance a new dam.

This is globalisation at work.

Sorry,

Faulty link.

Try this one.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1948

Carl,
So your contention is that democracies tend to clump together, adopt similar outlooks and end up on the same side of the idealogical divide? And thus don't fight each other. That rather was my point.

But to make your case you missed a few other examples of non-belligerent democracies - Sth Korea, Singapore, Thailand, India. Maybe not pristine examples of what a democracy can be but still examples of my point.

To take it one step further - no two nations that have a McDonalds restaurant have ever fought a war against each other. Economic integration breeds peace.

mhaze,

sorry, i didn't articulate my point very well. The reason the nations i mentioned havn't been at war has far more to do with the fact they were militarily and economically alligned than they fact they are democracies.

In fact, in some instances the US has demonstrated a blatant contempt for democracy, in Chile, Iran, Egypt, when these nations planned to nationalise their natural resources, actions endorsed by the majority of the population, they were covertly disrupted by the US and Europe. The fact is, in some parts of the world, democracy is just bad for business.

I've heard the McDonalds theory before and its ridiculously simplistic, and personally, i'd prefer more nations without McDonalds than with them.

Think about it, mhaze, if Australia were to discover massive oil reserves, and we made a democratically endorsed decision to sell it all to China, do you really think America would sit back and say 'oh, we'll leave them alone, because they are a democracy', not bloody likely.

Alas, the robot got me. And poor old wobbles had to shoot his last bullet to make a correction. Ah well, "greater love..." as they say.

Mhaze, you said:

"But a mere 10% of US oil supplies comes from the ME and most of that from Saudi Arabia .... according to this 'analysis' the US is fighting a war to secure resources they neither have nor need."

Alas, it's not that simple mhaze. Anyone from the extractive industries will tell you that the abiding obsession is to find and secure tomorrow's supplies.

The mighty Saudi fields are topping out - this from no less a person than Matt Simmons, himself an adviser to the Cheney Energy Task Force. From now on, the Saudis will be pumping ever more dirty water and pooh. This puts a terrific strain on the fields, crude transport and refining, to produce sufficient kero, petroleum and diesel.

Iraqi oil remains the glittering prize - it's champagne.

Try this map of known major reserves:

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/oilworldmap.html

- as you hover the mouse over the fields, the panel at the bottom gives that field's contribution in years remaining, at present world rates of consumption.

It's quite sobering.