World War III: Over Oil? ***Debate***

[MTV2]

WW3....Battlefield 2142....maybe over earth?

[JediKnight707]

I agree, but Bush has to pay the price. Why did he, of all people have to invade Iraq, out of nowhere, establish complete anarchism (before some hodgepodge democracy) and take Hussein away? I understand Hussein was no uberbenevolent God, but Bush isn't, either. If there's a crisis, can't he leave UN to handle it? It is because of such acts that the US has a bad name in many third-world countries.

 

I'm not a big fan of the UN anymore. In my opinion, its become biased. It's not something that I'd put my money in. Listen, you can't say that it was a bad thing that Bush invaded Iraq. I'll admit that it may not have been the best thing to do, but we have to see it from his perspective. Osama and Hussein, while not working together--though we don't know what happened 'underground' had the same views, had one common thought: Screw you America. If I was in Bush's situation, I probably would of invaded as well.

 

Look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and god knows how many countries the US has entered and broken. You think a person not from America is going to think this is a sweet, impeccable country of light and goodness? The Government of America is what is screwed up. The worst thing is, all of the world's governments are screwed up. They know what America is doing and why it is doing, but nobody wants to interfere, either because they want the loot, or they want to stay out and be safe.

 

Who's to say what would have happened if we hadn't 'entered and broken.' You can't assume that any of the countries would be better off if we hadn't come in. I don't think that our government is perfect, but like you said, no one's is. So don't think that Afghanistan was some perfect little country that everyone went to for tea and biscuits before we came in. We knew that the terriosts leaders were in Afghanistan, so we did the logical thing and went there.

 

World War III

 

Well, if there is going to be a war, I won't say that it'll be focused on oil per se, but that will definetly be one of the reasons for it. Though, it could be like the Civil War where it changed directions half way through. In its origin, the Civil War wasn't based on slavery. So, what I'm trying to say is: WWIII might start about oil, but I don't think that it'll conclude with oil (or vica-versa). We can get plenty from Canada.

 

Oil

 

Oil is liquid gold to us, though it really shouldn't be. We can get oil from many places, and we can get plenty of it, but Exxon and others are being SOB's and holding back.

[Jae Onasi]

Much as I love the concept and what it did in its early days as a political body, the UN, unfortunately, has become a corrupt, ineffectual body that prefers endless debate over action. It reminds me a lot of the Republic Senate right before Palpatine took over.

[JediKnight707]

Much as I love the concept and what it did in its early days as a political body, the UN, unfortunately, has become a corrupt, ineffectual body that prefers endless debate over action. It reminds me a lot of the Republic Senate right before Palpatine took over.

 

Exactly. It chooses to discuss what it could do before it actually does it. By the time something is actually decided to be done, its taken too long, and nothing can be done.

[Vaelastraz]

Oil

 

Oil is liquid gold to us, though it really shouldn't be. We can get oil from many places, and we can get plenty of it, but Exxon and others are being SOB's and holding back.

 

 

There are many statistics which claim oil will only last till 2060, while there are other statistics wich claim it will last for at least 300 years.

 

I think noone knows for how long it will last, but everyone knows, that it will run out sooner or later.

Countries should try and not waste more Oil then necessary, but instead of that, the industry takes the other way: Bigger Cars, bigger airplanes. Families got multiple cars, although they dont need it, ...

 

The world doesnt need brandnew technologies, they have been found already.

Like the Fuelcell . But unless scientist get a lot of help, they won't be able to develop those technologies proberly, like into the new car engine.

 

 

 

As for WWIII, I'm sure that there will be one, the question is when. But unlike many others here, i'm not in a country (i'm austrian) who will play a major part in that war, and I dont have enough information about those countries to really contribute to that debate (which is pretty heated...).

[stingerhs]

The world doesnt need brandnew technologies, they have been found already.

Like the Fuelcell . But unless scientist get a lot of help, they won't be able to develop those technologies proberly, like into the new car engine.

actually, setting up the infrastructure for hydrogen-based fuel cells is the biggest setback to the technology. current estimates are that the infrastructure would take at least 10 years to set up. not to mention the fact that the only way to manufacture hydrogen fuels is through the electric dissolution of water. it is both time consuming and expensive to do so.

 

if you ask me, the only viable alternative at this point is ethanol-based fuels. corn-based ethanol is cheap, easy to produce, and is very much a renewable resource that's not likely to run out within the next 60-300 years. again, the only downside is the infrastructure needed to set things up. the advantage is that the infrastructure could be set up within 5-10 years instead of 10-25 years. that and the jump from gasoline to ethanol isn't a very big jump for consumers as opposed to gasoline to fuel-cell powered electric motors since ethanol provides the same amount of power output of gasoline (actually, it is a bit better since it burns more efficiently).

 

if we do want to avoid WWIII due to oil requirements, i still say that either method would work, but ethanol would be the more viable choice.

[ScieX]

I'm not a big fan of the UN anymore. In my opinion, its become biased. It's not something that I'd put my money in. Listen, you can't say that it was a bad thing that Bush invaded Iraq. I'll admit that it may not have been the best thing to do, but we have to see it from his perspective. Osama and Hussein, while not working together--though we don't know what happened 'underground' had the same views, had one common thought: Screw you America. If I was in Bush's situation, I probably would of invaded as well.

 

if you are gonna invade every country that says "screw you america" we would be at war with a helluva lotta countries right now. the thing is, we need to get the man responsible for 9/11, and that is, as far as i know, Osama Bin Laden. if Saddam was a threat to us, which it turns out that he wasn't, it wouldn't have been anything immediate. the fact of the matter is that Bush is using fear to politicize (sorry if i spelled that wrong) the war in Iraq, also to tap telephones, and to pass the patriot act. oil may not be the reason why we are in Iraq, judging by how high the oil prices are i would severely doubt it. if you ask me, hes in there for revenge, who made an attempt at George Bush Sr.'s life when he was president??? Saddam. but thats just my point of view. the reason why we are in a country that has nothing to do with Bin Laden is the major backbone to the argument that the conspiracy theorists use (im not saying whether i agree with them or disagree, im just stating their argument)

[ScieX]

As long as the US's leaders think that it's ethical to invade a sovereign country in case it MIGHT pose a threat then pretty much any country can invade any other country for any reason it chooses to make up. WMD! 911! Regime change! Pick one! Think about this--how many countries in the world today can PROVE the US isn't a threat to them? All Dubya has to do is push a button and any place in the world he wants vaporizes. How does the rest of the planet prove that he's not just insane enough to do it? It can't, can it? So by the same logic the US used to invade and conquer Iraq, any other country in the world is perfectly justified in ignoring all international law and blowing anybody else to smithereens. And if the US really cared about "democracy", it would be blowing up half the planet right now, and it wouldn't have supported Saddam during the 70's and 80's in the first place.

 

Funny thing--everyone seems to have stopped wondering where Osama bin Laden is right now. The most wanted man on the planet, hunted by the full resources of a country with a sattelite network that can read a license plate from space, and he's evaded capture for almost five solid years. In all the fervor to bomb Iraq to the stone age, everyone seems to forget a few things:

1) Osama is Saudi

2) His hundreds of millions of dollars are in Saudi banks.

3) His huge family is like the Fords or the Rockefellers of Saudi Arabia.

4) Most (IIRC 16 of 19) 911 bombers were Saudi.

5) Saudi Arabia practices democracy like skinheads practice racial tolerance.

6) Saudi Arabia just happens to be a close second to Israel as America's strongest middle east ally.

7) The Saudi royal family and the Bush family are close, personal friends who have made billions together in oil, weapons, industry, and from the current war. Stealth fighters don't run on canola oil.

The US hasn't found Osama because he's in the one place they won't look.

 

And this is not a dig at the men and women who fight in the US military branches at all, but sure, building schools, sewers, hospitals and everything is nice and all that, but the gesture kind of falls a bit flat when it was American bombs and guns that destroyed the original schools, sewers and hospitals when they still had people in them. Imagine if Osama bin Laden had turned up in Times Square on September 12 2001 and said, "Whoops, sorry about that. Our bad. We hate your LEADERS, not you normal people. Here's a cheque for the damage. Incidentally, my brother-in-law runs a great construction firm, and I know he'll put in a competitive bid for the rebuiling gig."

 

your theory is possible but you didn't take one huge fact into consideration, and that is that Osama got disowned by his family. i dont think that hes allowed in saudi arabia.

[JediKnight707]

if you are gonna invade every country that says "screw you america" we would be at war with a helluva lotta countries right now. the thing is, we need to get the man responsible for 9/11, and that is, as far as i know, Osama Bin Laden. if Saddam was a threat to us, which it turns out that he wasn't, it wouldn't have been anything immediate. the fact of the matter is that Bush is using fear to politicize (sorry if i spelled that wrong) the war in Iraq, also to tap telephones, and to pass the patriot act. oil may not be the reason why we are in Iraq, judging by how high the oil prices are i would severely doubt it. if you ask me, hes in there for revenge, who made an attempt at George Bush Sr.'s life when he was president??? Saddam. but thats just my point of view. the reason why we are in a country that has nothing to do with Bin Laden is the major backbone to the argument that the conspiracy theorists use (im not saying whether i agree with them or disagree, im just stating their argument)

 

I'm willing to invade any country that hijacks four airplanes and sends thousands of people to their doom. I don't care if the country isn't invovled, I'm still willing to support anyone who would invade said country. What makes you think that Saddam wasn't a threat? He had chances to build nucleur weapons, and thats quite a threat. Why would you doubt that were in there for oil. We're not getting oil from Iraq, thats the problem. Saddam did not make an attempt on GBS's life. GBS helped Saddam. He gave them money, and weapons, trying to help them.

[Darth InSidious]

Now that that's out of the way, I'll actually contribute something to this thread that's on topic. I'll start out with a quick history of religion (*you will make believe I'm unbiased*). During the early times of Christianity (in which everyone was what we think of as Catholic today), and Jesus, the primary diety of this religion was alive,

Jesus is part of a tri-une deity. There are no other deities in Roman Catholicism or Christianity in general. Saints are honoured for having lived especially holy lives, and sometimes asked to intercede on our behalf to God.

my opinion of the Catholic Church was favorable. When one listens to what Jesus actually said, you'll see that "mainstream" Christianity from the time of his death until now doesn't really pay attention to what he said.

So you've read transcripts of the original four gospels/Acts of the Apostles/epistles/Revelation in the original languages they were written in, and understand all the cultural nuances which would have been present? If you had, and had also looked at Roman Catholic doctrine, you would see that the doctrine has not changed from that which Jesus taught.

 

By my count, religion has been the number one cause of death for human beings. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively promoted what I can only describe as ignorance.

And what about plain old greed, corruption, and evil? I think you'll find they bear the greater burden of guilt. Besides, if not for religion, people would've found something else to kill each other over - look at Nazism, or Russia under Stalin.

 

Scientists were at risk of being put to death if they didn't use evidence/proof of their theories that was sanctioned by the church.

Needless to say, this sort of thing doesn't exactly promote peace, ignorance leads to fear of the unknown, and at that point, everything was unknown. This was what lead to war, famine, plague, and overall s***iness.

This is a fallacy, largely cooked up by anti-Papist historians. This is an over-simplified view of the world. The Industrial Revolution might have taken place hundreds of years earlier thanks to the international Benedictine community and their attempts to smelt iron into large pieces if it weren't for the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the general rise of anti-Papism across Europe.

 

On the oft-quoted Galileo- St. Augustine had been a non-literalist, and it was an acceptable position to hold within the Church. But let's switch tacks for a moment. Let's talk about the Inquisition.

 

The Medaeval Inquisition, the first, actually did very little burning at the stake, which was only done to those who repeatedly committed heresy and refused to repent. Heresy is not only to believe things which the Church doesn't agree with, but also to then teach it and spread it to others. This obviously can be perceived as a threat. But you would have to have been repeatedly caught and repeatedly refused to recant your beliefs on many occasions to be sentenced to death. Among the possible punishments were a long pilgrimage for first offenders, wearing a yellow cross for life, confiscation of property, banishment, public recantation, or long-term imprisonment. Most of these are hardly difficult things, are they? A long pilgrimage is not a very difficult thing to do.

 

The Spanish, Portugese, Peruvian and Mexican Inquisitions were not set up by the Church, but by monarchs like Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain.

 

The Roman Inquisition, rather than seeking out and punishing heretics, instead continues to define what is Church doctrine and what is not. It seems to me that it is obvious that the Inquisition was blown out of proportion.

 

But the Spanish Inquisition nonetheless wielded considerable political power, and some high-ranking church officials, including Cardinal Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros, who was also a powerful statesman.

 

Back to Galileo. When Galileo made his first book, naturally it upset a lot of the scientific theories of the time. This also upset some people in power, such as the Inqusitorial Tribunal, who forced Galileo to not 'hold or defend' his theories.

 

After that, when Cardinal Barberini ascended the Papal throne, a friend of Galileo's and a supporter of his, Galileo got permission to publish his book. But, by using the new pope's words in the mouth of an Aristotelian geocentric, who came across as a fool due to his constant logical errors and mistakes. Not only did Galileo ridicule the established theory of the time, but he also ridiculed the Pope, and alienated his key supporter with the ridicule and obvious bias. It's hardly surprising that he was then put on trial by the Inquisition, which found him guilty, and then banned his book by placing it on the Index, required him to recant his ideas, and placed him under house arrest.

 

Not the tale of an ignorant Church and a virtuous seeker-of-truth locked in battle as it is portrayed often today. Indeed, even one of the most violent leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, Francisco Cardinal Jimenez founded a university.

 

Today, the same "family" of religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are split into many, many different sects, and when one combines that fact with the fact that fanatisism and fundamentalism are rampant nowadays (twisting an otherwise legitimate religion into something to profit with and push the shallow agendas of a******s), each sect will eventually hate each other, and each of them are willing to fight for their beliefs and will try and force their beliefs upon others.

True, but not all sects are aggressive. For example, there has been an increasing move towards ecumenicalism in Christianity in recent years, and few Christian churches still try to force others to convert (although there are always extremist loons, like 'Reaching Catholics For Christ'...)

 

Needless to say, people generally don't take well to having another's ideals, morals, and beliefs forced upon them, which is why I believe that no matter what people say, religion (I'll make an exception for most Eastern religions) will be the root of most evils that the future will hold.

No, people don't take well to extremism, and extremism is what you beleive will hold the great evils of the future. One can be an extremist secularist, or an extremist atheist, after all, and they are movements which are on the rise in the Western world.

 

Ehhh, I apologize in advance if I offended anyone.

You didn't particularly offend me, 'cept for quoting the same manipulations of the truth and over-simplifications I always hear used as 'evidence'

[Sabretooth]

yes, and as far as i understand it, if India did try to route out terrorism, that would involve an invasion of Pakistan which would more than likely cause a nuclear war between the two nations. believe me, i can understand why the peoples of the two bordered nations can tolerate it given the possible consequences of trying to handle things militarily.

 

Yes, and then we'll have Uncle Sam down to kick our asses.

 

But anyways, the point is, we go out to deal with terrorism outside our country only when asked, not randomly when needed. Whoever asked for help from India has always received it, and India has never invaded another country, unless explicitly required, which too, I do not recall.

 

i'm still not under the impression that the war is over oil to begin with. heck, there is no evidence that the conflict in the Middle East is over oil. until there is evidence, it is mere speculation on your part. the problems with the other countries are very much rather dire, but they don't pose the same threat to American security that the other nations do. Sudan isn't developing nuclear reactors which could easily be used irresponsibly. Iran and North Korea are.

 

Well as far as politics are concerned, it is obviously not for oil, but when you just pull up the facts and figures and apply your head, it just clicks in your head that America jumped in for the oil.

 

Sure, Iran and NK are minefields, but who's guarantee is it that America won't randomly start a nuclear holocaust, despite how absurd it sounds? Iran is not a bitching idiot to launch a dozen nuclear missiles on America, only to face serious aggresion from other countries. So is North Korea. The slightest mistake it makes it going to wipe it out and NK knows it. The reason it boasts about it's nuclear stuff is to inflate it's political image and to make it look important.

[Mace MacLeod]

your theory is possible but you didn't take one huge fact into consideration, and that is that Osama got disowned by his family. i dont think that hes allowed in saudi arabia.

 

It's a very, very large family. The US will never know for sure because, let's not forget, immediately after 911 the CIA rounded up every one of his family members in the US and stuck them on a plane for Saudi Arabia without holding or questioning them.

 

Sure, Michael Moore is a big, fat, pompous windbag, but I have yet to hear any hard-core right-winger actually answer the questions he raises.

[The Source]

Michael Moore is a papragandist.

[Jae Onasi]

By my count, religion has been the number one cause of death for human beings.

 

At the risk of sounding obnoxious, which I'm not trying to be, unless you've investigated every single death over the last 2000 years to see if religion was a factor or not, there's no way to prove this.

 

If there's any single largest cause of death, it's most likely to be infant mortality and disease, not religion. Bubonic plague in just the 1300's (and not including other plague outbreaks) killed off about 1/3 of the European population, and over 230 million people died during that outbreak alone. How many people have died as slaves, serfs or peasants because the overlords refused to take care of them or were abusive? Infant/child mortality prior to more modern medicine could approach 30-40%. These kinds of things don't receive 'the press' that wars do, however. I don't know any war that caused 35% total continent-wide population destruction.

 

I would argue that most 'religious wars' were actually wars for control of territory, money (either directly or indirectly) or trade routes, and religion happened to be a convenient excuse as a cause or a good way to recruit people to fight. If you're told you automatically go to heaven if you die in battle, and the average life span during the time of the Crusades was in the 30's or 40's anyway, it's kind of weirdly attractive.

 

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively promoted what I can only describe as ignorance. Scientists were at risk of being put to death if they didn't use evidence/proof of their theories that was sanctioned by the church. Needless to say, this sort of thing doesn't exactly promote peace, ignorance leads to fear of the unknown, and at that point, everything was unknown. This was what lead to war, famine, plague, and overall s***iness.

 

I won't deny that the Church has done some idiotic things. It's an institution run by imperfect humans, and we're going to screw it up from time to time. We freely admit that we sin and have the capacity to do some truly awful things. The important thing for those of us involved in the Church is that we try to follow a leader whose main message is peace and love. Do we mess it up? Sure. But we try to make it better, too. The Church was instrumental in preserving documents during the middle ages (via copying by scribes and safe storage), and it was the Church that was a big part of bringing the problems of slavery in the US to light and trying to abolish it in the 1800's, among many other positive things.

 

Today, the same "family" of religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are split into many, many different sects, and when one combines that fact with the fact that fanatisism and fundamentalism are rampant nowadays (twisting an otherwise legitimate religion into something to profit with and push the shallow agendas of a******s), each sect will eventually hate each other, and each of them are willing to fight for their beliefs and will try and force their beliefs upon others.

 

The fanatics and fundamentalists are a very vocal but small part of the mix. I'm pretty evangelical (which is different from fundamentalism), but I have great respect for my non-evangelical brethen.

 

What's all this got to do with WWIII? I think there's a potential for religion to be the spark that lights the fire. I think the probability is low compared to other causes but it's there just the same. Many other things are going to be the main contributers that serve as the wood soaked in gasoline that this spark ignites.

[CountVerilucus]

 

Sure, Michael Moore is a big, fat, pompous windbag, but I have yet to hear any hard-core right-winger actually answer the questions he raises.

 

What questions? id like to try and answer them, being a republican sympathizer and a supporter of the US government in general.

 

and about religion, religion is just used by leaders to rouse the people to their cause. real reason is greed, hatred, lust for power... sometimes you just have to defend yourself or really stop evil. like the US in WW2, but why was the war started in the first place (greed, hatred, lust for power...)

[Darth InSidious]

Um, Count, the US entered WWII after Pearl Harbour was bombed by the Japanese, not in some bid for global empire...

[CountVerilucus]

yeah, i know why the US entered. Im talking about why the war started in general. Japan was greedy for more control of the East Asia region and Pacific Islands for natural resources. The Nazis wanted to expand their "Third Reich", which roughly means "Third Empire" in English. So the German's tried to take over Europe. They did this for what?...greed\power.

[Darth InSidious]

yeah, i know why the US entered. Im talking about why the war started in general. Japan was greedy for more control of the East Asia region and Pacific Islands for natural resources. The Nazis wanted to expand their "Third Reich", which roughly means "Third Empire" in English. So the German's tried to take over Europe. They did this for what?...greed\power.

Actually, the major factor seems to have been revenge for the defeat of Germany in WWI.

[Canderous_ordo1]

well being in the defence forces my self there is a few things that i think could start one . frist thing i think would probley be oil because if you think of it everything needs oil or water would probley be anthor thing .

most little wars or battles start little like one country wants control of one thing and the other wanted control then troops get sent out to fight and die or it might even be revenge then they then years later its bigger and finaly after thousands died they give in

if you want to find out about wars id play empire earth 2 it takes you through all the wars to this day lots of history in it