Since the "As Yet Un-Named War", now raging through it's 25th day in Lebanon, is but an act or two away from becoming a global confrontation, I thought it might be useful to ponder the question of "who would side with whom" in the event of such an escalation.
Especially since it could entail the use of so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (chemical, biological, and nuclear) and therefore would likely not last very long, (though that is said of every war when it breaks out and is almost always wrong). And also because it could literally reshape the entire world, militarily, economically, and politically, overnight.
So who would side with the U.S. and Israel?
Well, considering the stakes and previous associations and alignments, as well as demographics, the U.S./Israel coalition would likely be actively opposed by every nation that has a majority or large minority of Muslim populations. The key exceptions could be England and Saudi Arabia. England, under Tony Blair, would likely react instantly to the U.S.-Israeli side, but could easily wither quickly due to "domestic" pressures.
And the Faisal family would face the most difficult decision in it's history, whether to side with the power of it's benefactor/protector (U.S.) against the animated desires of it's own Sunni Muslim population? (The delicate scramble to stay "non-aligned" by many nations would be a show in itself)
India, Australia, and Japan would throw in with the U.S. out of both self-defense and future self-interest, as would Poland, who will oppose whatever Russia and Germany want out of pure historical spite.
And of course the biggest question mark would be China. If there is any possible way to stay neutral, China will find it, much to it's future benefit.
Military action would likely be limited to the Middle East, but then there are always the incalculable "unintended consequences". (as in Pakistan/India?) The economic and political hostilities would certainly go global, especially if one side begins to look "victorious".
Since the time of Cecil Rhodes, the "Powers-that-Be" (Disciples of Rothschild) have longed for and worked diligently to bring about a "one-world government". And as the 'technological' advances of the 20th Century revealed new possibilities, the "plan" included the component of "population management".
Could the PtB/DoR see an opportunity to "kill two birds with one stone"? Considering their historical record, I would not be surprised. Though in all fairness I must say that they usually prefer incrementalism.
But it is a new century, indeed a new millenium. And it has been over forty years since Carroll Quigley.
Perhaps they have grown "impatient"?
stephenhsmith
5Aug2006
