You have not shown that it's weaker, or what cause what. Vietnam, under the French they were better off resource wise then when the American left, and yet they didn't have a conflict afterward and successfully rebuild their economies. Singapore - poor in all resources - no conflict and is now richer per capita than the US. China - went through communism, starvation, but with unification and a change of direction, become the second biggest economy in the world. Cambodia - a socialist country in the 60's with good infrastructure, war came, and everything was destroyed, after 1993 election, they had a coupe in 1997, but otherwise conflict free - their economy is growing rapidly and people are enjoying better standard of living. In fact, almost every country in Asia sees that pattern, after the conflicts, they rebuild their economy and are better off despite resource issues.Obviously worse off; I'm just pointing out that poverty usually causes conflicts. The causal link in the opposite direction exists, but is much weaker.
The society I referred to are past societies like the Egyptian, the Chinese, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Europeans in a way. The rose to become the dominant civilisation in their geography and then fell as a results of conflicts. And you are not having a full grasp of the history of Asia or Africa if you think countries never went backward, many have during the cold war. SA never reached the kind of standard of living enjoyed by the Europeans and the American, not for the blacks anyway.I'm not sure what societies you are referring to, or what you mean by "fallen," but very few societies have had their standard of living drop significantly after reaching what we think of today as middle-income status or high-income status. And the ones that do typically have their own idiosyncratic reasons: South Africa (HIV/AIDS), Argentina (extremely bad governance), Russia (alcoholism). Generally, most societies that fall even further behind are those which are already stuck in poverty traps.
If you think "bad governance" is somehow different than conflicts and instability, then I think we are talking past each other.
"Civil war" doesn't mean there's no external interference - Egypt, Libya, Yeman, Syria reminds you of anything? Not to mention Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. War are more complex than just "international" and "civil". In fact, what transpired in SEA is exactly what happens today, external influence pushing factions they support into power resulting in internal conflicts which look like a civil war.I don't know which countries you're referring to. But presumably some combination of conflict caused by external powers and/or bad governance caused by external powers. Both of which have largely receded since the end of the Cold War. Most conflicts in the world today are civil wars, rather than international wars.
You are making logical jumps again. It doesn't boil down to "personalities of individual leaders", the actions that eventually lead to war are complex with many parties involved. Libya was under Ghadaffi for many years before there was an "uprising" and he was deposed, many factors had to come together for that to happen at that exact time. Anyone who claim to know the root cause of any war is simplifying the issue - like you are doing by trying to claim that water is the root cause of most conflicts in the world. People are still debating about WWII and how it could have been prevented - if it's down to Hitler alone, then the answer would have been easy - if he existed, war WWII was inevitable - but it's not that simplistic.None of this is wrong, I just think it fails to grasp why conflicts begin in the first place. If conflict is the "root cause" from which all of those other problems stem, then it would just boil down to the personalities of individual leaders (and therefore be nothing more than the luck of the draw as to which countries find peace and which go to war). I think that this approach is too "in the weeds" and ignores the broad causes of conflict.
Right, so the American can just ship lots of water and food there and conflicts resolved. Don't even need the guns anymore.Neither Afghans nor Iraqis have sufficient water or energy, and Afghans don't have sufficient food either.