Now that there's a gas shortage everywere,could this mean another war? The place's that may be attacked are canada,alaska,iran and many other places!The gas is becomeing limeted,so there may be debutes over who gets the gas?!I hope there is not a war but let's here your opianons now!?
-- Edited by kari bunny at 21:38, 2008-07-01
__________________
"Is it just me or is she kinda cute when she's angery",-Hunter(spyro year of the dragon). -Yes I have been converted into a Duckie,GO DUCK AND HIS GREATNESS xD!
-When everylife meet's another life,Something shall be born- quoted by Cynthia The Shinno Elite 4 Champion.
There's actually a lot of merit to this argument. Not only are supplies of crude oil running low, but now with countries like China and India becoming more heavily dependent on automobiles, that just pushes the demand up further for a product there's less and less of. So to say that there won't be at least some international tensions as a result of this (not to mention an even huger increase in the price of a barrel of oil) would be downright naïve.
I really doubt Alaska or Canada would ever be attacked, though. Canada's just not a huge enough player on the global stage, and Alaska is not nearly big enough. Plus, if you attack Alaska, you attack the United States - something pretty much everyone should know better than to do, given our massive military back-up.
The countries that are most likely going to see the turmoil over this are the Middle Eastern countries, especially Saudi Arabia.
This is why, yes, it IS necessary to raise funding for research into alternative sources of energy.
To be honest, oil shortage isn't actually my hugest concern as far as what would cause World War III. What I'm -really- worried about is the eventual shortage of water supply. That's something you CAN'T find alternatives for, and something that everyone really needs. And, as global climatic forecast trends show, regions that are already dry will become even drier in the future. I think if there will be any global conflict that will end humanity, that will be it.
Yes i suppose but still the worlds getting crazyer everyday,despit the gas prices and shortage!
__________________
"Is it just me or is she kinda cute when she's angery",-Hunter(spyro year of the dragon). -Yes I have been converted into a Duckie,GO DUCK AND HIS GREATNESS xD!
-When everylife meet's another life,Something shall be born- quoted by Cynthia The Shinno Elite 4 Champion.
It's certain theres an enormous shortage of food and water in the future. Especially in the third world. Partly because of climate change, partly because of an insane population growth.
There are just going to be too many mouths to feed. Now it probably wont result in WW3, but just a bunch of brutal and desperate conflicts all over the third world for fields, live stock, and water.
Actuelly WW3 is already happening if you ask me. You just call it the war on terrorism. And if suddenly we go to war with Iran (Which we should in my opinion.) then it's definitely WW3.
techfan979 wrote:Actuelly WW3 is already happening if you ask me. You just call it the war on terrorism. And if suddenly we go to war with Iran (Which we should in my opinion.) then it's definitely WW3.
Invading Iran is an absolutely ridiculous notion, on so many levels. We would invade Iran probably for the same reasons we invaded Iraq, and look how well Iraq turned out. Meanwhile, Iran is far larger, much more highly educated than Iraq and has a youth-based population who doesn't like their government in the first place. If we weren't successful in Iraq, what in the world makes anyone think we could do better in Iran? Not to mention that the general population of Iran is Persian, not Arab, and just going off of that, doesn't pose nearly as much of a threat, if any threat, to Western nations.
Yes, I did say that a lot of Iran hates their own governent. So does that mean if we try to overthrow Iran they will automatically side with us? No. The general attitude of the government over there is "they're sons of bitches, but they're our sons of bitches." They thrive on their independence. They're not going to switch over. All we have to do is wait until what's now the rebellious, Westernized youthful population to reach prime age, and the government problem will fix itself. Meanwhile, it would be an absolute waste of our time to try to 'convert' their government, because it won't work.
Meanwhile, the Taliban has pretty much taken over Afghanistan, and now have their eyes on Pakistan. We are losing more and more troops because of the now thriving Taliban, much, much more than we are losing to Iran-based forces. Afghanistan and even Pakistan are a much bigger threat than Iran. But who, daresay, really brought the Taliban to power in the first place? Bingo, the good ol' U S of A.
If the Middle East teaches us anything, is that we should now know better than to f*ck around with it. Almost nothing we've done so far as led to anything good. And yet we still insist that we need to fix it. Yeah, good effin luck.
Yes, war with Iran could very well start World War 3. But it would be absolutely, positively pointless to do so. There are only two feasible reasons to invade Iran.
1.) For oil. But for reasons I've already explained, this would do nothing but harm.
2.) As a cheap political ploy. If Bush starts war with Iran right before he leaves office, America will think, "well, we better have a Republican president to handle this." And the Republican influence will continue, probably for no other reason than to cover up all the dirt on Bush that would inevitably be released if someone other than McCain is elected.
So no, invading Iran is an absolutely nonsensical idea.
I shouldn't have put it that way. Because I know the conditions are not good for it.
What I definitely don't think we should do is pull out of Iraq. We came down there going ''We're gonna shoot all the bad guys, and give you freedom and democracy!'' We haven't gotten them on their feet yet, and their country has gone to hell. We cannot pull out, and leave them to themselves. Like we did in the first gulf war.
Going into Iran would be H*ll,and mess up everything so im not sure the rice cutbacks and stuff,soon we may face a war for food,gas/oil,but then we'd all be er what's the word drafted men and women so either way were swrewed!
__________________
"Is it just me or is she kinda cute when she's angery",-Hunter(spyro year of the dragon). -Yes I have been converted into a Duckie,GO DUCK AND HIS GREATNESS xD!
-When everylife meet's another life,Something shall be born- quoted by Cynthia The Shinno Elite 4 Champion.
What I definitely don't think we should do is pull out of Iraq. We came down there going ''We're gonna shoot all the bad guys, and give you freedom and democracy!'' We haven't gotten them on their feet yet, and their country has gone to hell. We cannot pull out, and leave them to themselves. Like we did in the first gulf war.
Please explain why the negative repercussions of pulling out outweigh the negative repercussions of staying in until "the job is done". I have yet to hear a convincing argument in this respect.
The problem is is there's really no feasible way we can get the "job done".
What I definitely don't think we should do is pull out of Iraq. We came down there going ''We're gonna shoot all the bad guys, and give you freedom and democracy!'' We haven't gotten them on their feet yet, and their country has gone to hell. We cannot pull out, and leave them to themselves. Like we did in the first gulf war.
Please explain why the negative repercussions of pulling out outweigh the negative repercussions of staying in until "the job is done". I have yet to hear a convincing argument in this respect.
The problem is is there's really no feasible way we can get the "job done".
Well if we pull out after we promised them freedom, democracy, and stability
1. We would have completely f***ed them over, and left their country in ruins. Then the Iraqis would really hate us. I dont think anyone finds that ethical.
2. Who knows who could take power in Iraq then? We dont want more islamo-facist or taliban (even though they're far away from Iraq) states. Plus, this would mean another anti-western nation in the middle east. They'd probably become a spawning ground for terrorists.
The way I think we need to get the job done, is more soldiers. We only have a fifth of the sufficient amount. But considering social and economic conditions, thats probably not going to happen.
The problem with both of your points is that they are Catch-22's.
1.) So far, in Iraq, conditions are actually worse than they were. At least under Saddam they had basic necessities such as power and water. Not everywhere, but a hell of a lot more places than now. We've already failed them - they won't think anything less (or more) of us if we just pull out. In fact, many Iraqis would be glad of it, according to what some Iraqis themselves have said.
2.) This may sound cruel, but that's not our problem. The problem was theirs all along - its simply theirs to fix. And Iraq already IS anti-western, AND a spawning ground for terrorists. So that's irrelevant. You also seem to be under the impression that we're in control of Iraq right now. That is hardly the case.
You are correct in regards to your last paragraph.
It's also important to note that many Iraqis didn't WANT democracy.
WW3 won't happen, well, not in this time period. Gas shortage means less land vehicles and maybe less aircraft. What I'm worried about at this point is that China might try something, as they are flexing their military muscle.
__________________
He needs to be stopped I like BF Heroes! Deal with it!
Their getting it from Canada, we send money to them in the form of foreign aid, and China is an emerging super power....I wish Canada was a super power, but we can never achieve that XD
__________________
He needs to be stopped I like BF Heroes! Deal with it!
