Moderator: Community Team
Yeah, probably would.Knight of Orient wrote:Either question is good, i say it will be over Israel.
Israel says they won't strike pre-emptively... I don't buy that, they've done it once already (Iraq, same situation as the current one in Iran), not to mention this is their survival we're talking about here.Heimdall wrote:Yeah, probably would.Knight of Orient wrote:Either question is good, i say it will be over Israel.
Scenario A
Phase 1: Israel strikes Iran as pre-emptive strike becuase they are building Phase 2: Muslims become enraged. Unstability in Egypt and Arabia Saudia. An Oil crisis follows.
Phase 3: US Economy takes a nose-dive, so the US sends troops to protect oil assets in the middle-east
Phase 4: Suicide bombers kills US troops, the whole middle-east becomes engulfed in violence.
This has already happened...Muslims become enraged.
This is the old "war for oil" arguement, which is completely false... had we actually gone to war for oil, we'd control it, we'd be selling Arab oil, making the money, and American's would be paying less, not the close to $3.00 a gallon we were paying this summer.Phase 3: US Economy takes a nose-dive, so the US sends troops to protect oil assets in the middle-east
Truth is no one is ever going to actually use nukes. Let Iran and N. Korea nuke up. It will just help cause their economies to collapse just like it did for the Soviet Union.P Gizzle wrote:i think it'll be a war to end most, if not all, wars....
Iran will nuke up, so will N. Korea......
the rest of the world will nuke up and BOOM!!!!
most cities are gone, and then, we rebuild.....
Yeah, everyones afraid the other person will nuke them. Itll be a conventional war. And for those of us in the 13-20 age range, well get to fight itstrike wolf wrote:Truth is no one is ever going to actually use nukes. Let Iran and N. Korea nuke up. It will just help cause their economies to collapse just like it did for the Soviet Union.P Gizzle wrote:i think it'll be a war to end most, if not all, wars....
Iran will nuke up, so will N. Korea......
the rest of the world will nuke up and BOOM!!!!
most cities are gone, and then, we rebuild.....
Putting aside the current events in Iraq, why do you think the US maintains a constant Military presence in the Persian Gulf (U.S.S. Cole for example) and why did we intervene in the Kuwait invasion?Serbia wrote:This is the old "war for oil" arguement, which is completely false... had we actually gone to war for oil, we'd control it, we'd be selling Arab oil, making the money, and American's would be paying less, not the close to $3.00 a gallon we were paying this summer.
Do you realize that if we drilled in ANWAR and refined coal to oil we'd be completely self sufficient in oil? And Iraq has nothing to do with oil. Serbia's right, if it did, we'd be selling the oil, not the ArabsHeimdall wrote:Putting aside the current events in Iraq, why do you think the US maintains a constant Military presence in the Persian Gulf (U.S.S. Cole for example) and why did we intervene in the Kuwait invasion?Serbia wrote:This is the old "war for oil" arguement, which is completely false... had we actually gone to war for oil, we'd control it, we'd be selling Arab oil, making the money, and American's would be paying less, not the close to $3.00 a gallon we were paying this summer.
Bush said it himself, America is dependant on oil. This is why. Cut off the supply and it spells trouble.
Sorry was talking to DIRESTRAITS who was ongoing about Iraqstrike wolf wrote:I know what you posted. It needed to be reiterated so that it wouldn't just be ignored.
What are you talking about???? American companies ARE selling Arab oil and they are making a fortune. Do you think they care how much you are paying for your gas? They want to make as much profits as they can, which is normal.Serbia wrote: we'd be selling Arab oil, making the money, and American's would be paying less, not the close to $3.00 a gallon we were paying this summer.
And here's Chevron's operation in the Middle-East (note that Iraq IS included) http://www.chevron.com/operations/middle_east/map.aspwww.exxonmobil.com wrote:ExxonMobil’s operations in the Asia Pacific/Middle East region accounted for about 17 percent of the company’s 2005 net oil and gas production and about 14 percent of Upstream earnings. Built on an established large-scale and profitable production base in the region, those percentages are expected to increase as new developments come onstream in Qatar.
Acutally, Biodiesel is already availalbe on the markets. However production levels are a far cry from what is needed to replace oil at this time. The other concern is that a barrel of Biodiesel is still more expensive to produce than regular barrel of oil at this time.DIRESTRAITS wrote:Your wrong Heimdall. Well have biodeisal soon enogh, so Oil wont be a worry.
This is already the cause of the 'unrest' (don't you love the way that term brushes the significance of what is happening under the carpet) in the Middle East, whether or not that is WWIII in the offing.DublinDoogey wrote:The better question is when it is coming but what will cause it. I have a teacher who swears by the fact that it will be over fresh, drinkable water, which, after some thought is a very compelling arguement.
I still can't really agree with this however. I think there are many and varied reasons for the West's war in the Middle East and amongst those is undoubtedly an interest in protecting access to oil.Serbia wrote: This is the old "war for oil" arguement, which is completely false... had we actually gone to war for oil, we'd control it, we'd be selling Arab oil, making the money, and American's would be paying less, not the close to $3.00 a gallon we were paying this summer.
Absolutely. I recommend watching this - a v well argued documentary about peak oil and US foreign policy. Scary stuff. Gave me the shakes.Bertros Bertros wrote:
Sure there is no way that any Western nation could control and sell oil from the Middle East. That would be way to obvious and make a mockery of the thinly veiled excuses upheld for the war in Iraq. Much better to instigate regime change and install a West friendly government and reap the benefits in the long term. You think $3 a gallon is steep, we pay more like $8 a gallon in the UK and you just wait 10-15 years as oil becomes more scarce. Its not necessarily about procuring or profiting from oil now, so much as ensuring access to reserves for the future...

I couldn't agree more thoroughly but would not restrict that recommendation to citizens of the US.Dale Allen Pfeiffer. Author 'Eating Fossil Fuels' wrote:I heartily recommend this documentary. It should be watched by every citizen of the U.S.
Bush was stating the obvious when he said that. Everyone knows we're dependant on oil! We maintained a military presence in the Persian Gulf because of Sadaam. We helped him fight his war against Iran, who would have taken over the region. Then we had to stop him, after the Kuwait invasion. But even the Clinton administration didn't pull troops out after the first war, because they knew the job wasn't done!Heimdall wrote:Putting aside the current events in Iraq, why do you think the US maintains a constant Military presence in the Persian Gulf (U.S.S. Cole for example) and why did we intervene in the Kuwait invasion?Serbia wrote:This is the old "war for oil" arguement, which is completely false... had we actually gone to war for oil, we'd control it, we'd be selling Arab oil, making the money, and American's would be paying less, not the close to $3.00 a gallon we were paying this summer.
Bush said it himself, America is dependant on oil. This is why. Cut off the supply and it spells trouble.