RE: War for Oil?

RE: War for Oil? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Starbuck09 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/3/2009 4:01:07 PM)
But that is largely what we do have until a nation decides that the cost is too high. There are sadly finite resources on the plannet and eventually trade nearly always breaks down. On the rare occasion it doesn't then one country becomes a slave to another for it's needs and is thoroughly exploited that way. Trade is a precursor to war not a method to end it. I strongly believe that the only way we will end war is when there are no longer any seperate nations but a single world government. But that in itself has it's own pitfalls.

Politesub53 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/3/2009 4:27:21 PM)
I cant argue with that, not that I can ever see it happening. The EU is a prime example with every nation still looking out for its own interests above everyone elses.

rulemylife -> RE: War for Oil? (7/3/2009 9:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet Well I think it's just silly to start blazing bullets at each other over Oil of Olay. I mean I was just at the Big Lots and the shelves were fu........excuse me...... It's about what? Ohhhhhhh. Never mind. chia* (the pet) [sm=LMAO.gif]

blacksword404 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 3:38:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 And you both feel its okay for any Country to just go and take what they need, should we not be striving for something better ? So because somebody is for getting out of a entangling corrupt world organization there is a problem? The U.N has not prevented any wars. They siphon shit loads of money though. Human history is about getting what you need however you have to. Bargain, War, trade are only tools.

FangsNfeet -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 5:33:45 AM)
Is controlling oil wrong or right? It's a no win situation. Just about every nation and person in the world is dependent on oil. Economies can be destryoed if and when oil is put into the wrong hands. It's more logical to have atleast a controling factor over oil rather than be forced to bow to the whims of a possible tyrant.

rulemylife -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 8:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 The U.N has not prevented any wars. They siphon shit loads of money though. I know this has become a really popular thing for people to spout, but it is so completely inaccurate on so many levels I don't know where to begin. They have had a great hand in preventing numerous conflicts, in arranging for cessation of hostilities in many others, and in acting as a peace-keeping force after a conflict ends. But more relevant, is that they are not the police force of the world, the UN was designed to create an open line of communications between countries to settle matters peacefully. The organization is only as effective as its member nations abide by the UN charter, and the Bush Administration put the US in violation of that with its tortured legal interpretations to justify invading Iraq. LCNP.org - Global Action to Prevent War - Iraq Statement

Politesub53 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 8:42:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 And you both feel its okay for any Country to just go and take what they need, should we not be striving for something better ? So because somebody is for getting out of a entangling corrupt world organization there is a problem? The U.N has not prevented any wars. They siphon shit loads of money though. Human history is about getting what you need however you have to. Bargain, War, trade are only tools. History contains enough mistakes made by mankind, yet you want to perpetuate it. Your quote above absolves Hitler, Stalin and the slave trade. I hope youre okay with that, I am not, we should strive for better and not carry out the mistakes of the past.

FullCircle -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 9:46:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet Is controlling oil wrong or right? It's a no win situation. Just about every nation and person in the world is dependent on oil. Economies can be destryoed if and when oil is put into the wrong hands. It's more logical to have atleast a controling factor over oil rather than be forced to bow to the whims of a possible tyrant. The other obvious approach is to realise there are viable alternatives for industry and the public in terms of meeting energy and transportation needs. Once we have reduced such dependencies we can have a more straightforward relationship with the middle east; one that does not entail fear and paranoia about the west’s true motives in the region.

blacksword404 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 11:35:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 And you both feel its okay for any Country to just go and take what they need, should we not be striving for something better ? So because somebody is for getting out of a entangling corrupt world organization there is a problem? The U.N has not prevented any wars. They siphon shit loads of money though. Human history is about getting what you need however you have to. Bargain, War, trade are only tools. History contains enough mistakes made by mankind, yet you want to perpetuate it. Your quote above absolves Hitler, Stalin and the slave trade. I hope youre okay with that, I am not, we should strive for better and not carry out the mistakes of the past. Hitler had goals. Goals the rest of the world did not agree with. He made his play and was stopped. If the world had agreed with him then he would likely have won. I absolve no one. I don't deal in feelings. I deal in what is. What does it matter if I like it or not? It's irrelevant. What does better mean to you? After some thousand years have you finally come up with the answers? Things could in theory be done much better. But putting that into action is much harder.

blacksword404 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 11:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mastrcmmdr quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Just because they represent me, it doesnt mean they speak for me. Yea they do. Maybe not you personal view. But your collective national view. When another country wants to know what your countrymen think about a particular subject the ask you representatives. They don't run around and ask people of the street. They ask your representatives because they speak for you. If you say no they don't. Then who does speak for you and your countrymen? What person or group of people have you selected to be your voice? Which is interesting, because the MSM loved to report on the "man in the street" attitude about the US and Bush, and not their governments' views, which were far more favorable. Ratings. Msn does not talk at G20 meetings or meet with foreign heads of state.

MrRodgers -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 12:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet Is controlling oil wrong or right? It's a no win situation. Just about every nation and person in the world is dependent on oil. Economies can be destryoed if and when oil is put into the wrong hands. It's more logical to have atleast a controling factor over oil rather than be forced to bow to the whims of a possible tyrant. You are correct but only in that there is...no-winning here for 'the people.' This is as usual all about money and the bankers. Having the west successfully in debt. by trillions and in dollars, the mid-east (China too) are a captive lenders with our (western) huge and increasing trade deficits feeding dollars by the billions ...the world's reserve currency remains...the dollar. Saddam was going to start an oil exchange and based on the Euro. The western bankers couldn't let that happen. The world's borrowers and lenders are committed need oil to do business and pay the debt service. If Saddam had just played ball, stayed happy importing his Swedish whores, there never would have been a war. Saddam was not only a CIA protege' but was our mid-east buffer against Iranian ambitions as reflected in our support for Iraq during the Iraqi-Iranian war. We invaded not for the possession of the oil but to maintain its trade in dollars as reflected in the Brits and Chinese now having the first two deals signed as we blog.

philosophy -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 3:55:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 What does better mean to you? After some thousand years have you finally come up with the answers? Things could in theory be done much better. But putting that into action is much harder. ......your argument only makes sense if nothing has changed for thousands of years. Which is not true. To pick one example, slavery is, pretty much world wide, seen as a no-no. Even a couple of hundred years ago, that view didn't have anything like so much currency. Therefore, things are improving. The point that seems to escape some people is that it's a process not a goal. It's not about suddenly becoming perfect, it's about making improvements. In the last 50 years or so, no Western nation has started a war to control resources....with the exception of the last Bush administration. This is why it is seen as atavistic.

Politesub53 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 3:55:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Hitler had goals. Goals the rest of the world did not agree with. He made his play and was stopped. If the world had agreed with him then he would likely have won. I absolve no one. I don't deal in feelings. I deal in what is. What does it matter if I like it or not? It's irrelevant. I find it really sad that you dont deal in feelings, just because something is a reality, it doesnt mean we cant hope for more. quote: What does better mean to you? After some thousand years have you finally come up with the answers? Things could in theory be done much better. But putting that into action is much harder. Better to me means an end to this tragic loss of life worldwide. People cant say its okay for us to take what we need, then cry and moan when faced with the repercussions, such as terrorist attacks. The idea we can use force to take what we want, is barbaric and inward looking, in my view. Edited to fix quotes.

blacksword404 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 5:26:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 What does better mean to you? After some thousand years have you finally come up with the answers? Things could in theory be done much better. But putting that into action is much harder. ......your argument only makes sense if nothing has changed for thousands of years. Which is not true. To pick one example, slavery is, pretty much world wide, seen as a no-no. Even a couple of hundred years ago, that view didn't have anything like so much currency. Therefore, things are improving. The point that seems to escape some people is that it's a process not a goal. It's not about suddenly becoming perfect, it's about making improvements. In the last 50 years or so, no Western nation has started a war to control resources....with the exception of the last Bush administration. This is why it is seen as atavistic. Slavery is a no-no but there are people that are slaves. Whether they are enslaved or not. But slavery on this planet has been a severely flawed process. So maybe it should be an outlawed thing. Eventually when things get tight and resources are needed, they will be attained. One way or another. Like it or not countries have needs. Things to make them stronger and more powerful. And for a lot of them help them to get to the top of the pile.

Politesub53 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 5:30:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Slavery is a no-no but there are people that are slaves. Whether they are enslaved or not. But slavery on this planet has been a severely flawed process. So maybe it should be an outlawed thing. This is a cop out and contradicts your viewpoint. Are you now suggesting to enslave someone should be outlawed but killing them for their belongings shouldnt ? I find that disturbing as both are equally abhorrent.

blacksword404 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 5:30:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Hitler had goals. Goals the rest of the world did not agree with. He made his play and was stopped. If the world had agreed with him then he would likely have won. I absolve no one. I don't deal in feelings. I deal in what is. What does it matter if I like it or not? It's irrelevant. I find it really sad that you dont deal in feelings, just because something is a reality, it doesnt mean we cant hope for more. quote: What does better mean to you? After some thousand years have you finally come up with the answers? Things could in theory be done much better. But putting that into action is much harder. Better to me means an end to this tragic loss of life worldwide. People cant say its okay for us to take what we need, then cry and moan when faced with the repercussions, such as terrorist attacks. The idea we can use force to take what we want, is barbaric and inward looking, in my view. Edited to fix quotes. Feeling are good. For feeling. Not for making decisions. If you make a guy angry he is more likely to make mistakes and get sloppy. Minds are for making decisions.

blacksword404 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 5:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Slavery is a no-no but there are people that are slaves. Whether they are enslaved or not. But slavery on this planet has been a severely flawed process. So maybe it should be an outlawed thing. This is a cop out and contradicts your viewpoint. Are you now suggesting to enslave someone should be outlawed but killing them for their belongings shouldnt ? I find that disturbing as both are equally abhorrent. Go ahead Mr. police outlaw killing someone for their things. Better yet outlaw countries vying for supremacy. Let me know how that works out for you. The first can be done somewhat and the second of yours has never been done.

philosophy -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 5:45:55 PM)
FR .....there are two sorts of people in the world. A phrase which has given rise to a number of witty jokes, but can be a useful filter to look at things through. The filter i'd like to use now is the one which says, there are two sorts of people in the world; those who see human beings as individuals vying with/against each other, and those who see human beings as a social being that works best when we cooperate. Now, this thread has been about how nations operate rather than individual humans, but i think those filter have been carried over onto the national stage. The problem with that, is that nations are, by their very nature, social organisms. The will inevitably be a category error is they're judged by the same standards that we judge individuals. Blacksword and Starbuck, it seems to me, is trying to treat nations as if they were individual human beings. Essentially assigning the same right and ability to be a selfish, bullying arsehole as an individual human. Most great nations go through a phase of this, but those that survive are the ones that recognise the mistake and realise that enlightened self interest requires cooperation rather than competition........they realise that some principles must never be compromised. And the greatest of those is a justice that over-rides mere narrow national interest.

Politesub53 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 5:45:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Go ahead Mr. police outlaw killing someone for their things. Better yet outlaw countries vying for supremacy. Let me know how that works out for you. The first can be done somewhat and the second of yours has never been done. Yet again you fail to give a straight answer to a straight question. You stated earlier that mankind had always taken and used what he needed. So, once more, are you saying its okay to kill someone for their oil, but not to enslave them to work your farm ?

Starbuck09 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 6:36:18 PM)
Okay polite sib forgive me if im not at my bestr i'c been on the slash all nifgt. As I see it it's irrelevant to speak about how war is wrong unless you have a viable alternative. It is surely unfair to saywar is wrongyet not put forwsard a workable model to replace it with. Philosopy for example believes I conflate individuals with nations, if anything I do thopposite. I am as yet unaware of any nation or epire that h done without war. Nations do not go through phases of bullyin gthey go through phases which define what bullying is, there is an important difference. Politesub you believe it is not right to kill for oil but you di not provide a viable alternative. I do not want to kill for oil but I will do so as every day I use that commodity I am as ''guilty'' as sin. Out of interest philosophy what nation or empire do you believe has risen above self interest to embrace cooperation. I cannot name one thay hav all behave exactly the same from Ghenmghis Khan to Roosevelt and beyond.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.347656E-02