OT: World War 3... - Page 2

Renegade 13 · #11 July 17th, 2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Dizzy said:
Doesnt change the fact that most of the muslim world will soon be taught that simply because they are sitting on black gold doesnt mean they own it.

I think a good relocation plan is in order.

I hope not many people share this opinion; Canada is sitting on one hell of a lot more oil than any Middle Eastern country, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia. Does that mean we don't own it, and if you guys want it you have the right to just take it??

Nostradamus is a total load of ****e in my opinion. No one can forsee the future, the laws of physics as we know them prohibit it.

Renegade 13 · #12 July 17th, 2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

sachmo said:
If you sit down and ask yourself what the goals of many of these countries are, you will realize that a wide-scale Middle East "war" will not happen, let alone "World War Three".

Does there have to be a logical goal?? Was Hitler's hatred of Jews logical? Didn't stop him from doing what he did.

I think the centuries of blind hatred between Israeli's and Arab nations is sufficient to start a good sized war in the region.

Renegade 13 · #13 July 17th, 2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

TerranC said:
Iran and Syria won't join in the fight officially if they know what is good for them: Iran gets embargoed from the UN, and Syria's involvement would confirm that they officially support Hezbollah and all that they do, which will only give the Coalition of the Willing political ammo to enact regime change on them. As for unoffcial, off-the-records help, they're already there anyway, and even Israel won't acknowledge them, for fears of opening another front in this military action.

Well, I'm afraid this isn't quite correct. Syria has already stated they officially support Hezbollah...

External Link

Atrocities · #14 July 17th, 2006, 04:12 PM

This is about respect. Neither nation respects the other. One is considered to be pure evil by all that surround it, and they will do anything to humilate, alienate, and eventually obliterate it. The other considers is neighbors terrorist states because they like to blow up buses, buildings, and kidnap people, use them for extortion and eventually behead them or murder them in some other fashion.

How can you settle things when neither side is willing to capitualte. Isreal did back down and look at what happened. Are they to blame for this, no. They live in the belly of the beast so they know best that the ONLY thing Hezbollah understands is force. Iran knows this and is using that as a means to "get Iran off the front burner" regarding the nuke issue.

So who is really to blame here, honestly the UN. The UN is a conglomerate of nuttered half wits and criminally weak sisters who couldn't agree on a course of action to save a anything say themsevles. Look too the balkan then to Africa, and then to the oil for food scam to know that they are in it only for the money not for the good of the world. The UN, if it would grow a set of balls, could stomp down on Iran and get them to order Hezbollah to make nice... then the US could do the same to Isreal and things would return to the status quo. However we all know that as long as Russa and China are backing Iran in the UN, France, and the rest of them won't be able to do a thing say for blaming Isreal as the problem. Really now, this comming from France, a country that was twice invaded in the last 100 years calling Isreal the aggressor here... give me a f*ing break. If German had invaded France and killed and kidnapped their soldiers, what do you think they would have done... ok bad example they would have surrendered of course.

Hunpecked · #15 July 17th, 2006, 04:50 PM

World War III was the so-called Cold War. World War IV started 09/11/2001.

sachmo · #16 July 17th, 2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:

Quote:

sachmo said:
If you sit down and ask yourself what the goals of many of these countries are, you will realize that a wide-scale Middle East "war" will not happen, let alone "World War Three".

Does there have to be a logical goal?? Was Hitler's hatred of Jews logical? Didn't stop him from doing what he did.

I think the centuries of blind hatred between Israeli's and Arab nations is sufficient to start a good sized war in the region.

While I give the nod to pure blind hatred, Iran, for example, has too much at stake to get into a conventional conflict with Isreal at this point. They are just trying to prove that they are the mover and shaker of the middle east, and that they can do whatever they want. If they can kill Jews by doing it, then so much the better.

Baron Munchausen · #17 July 17th, 2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:

Quote:

Dizzy said:
Doesnt change the fact that most of the muslim world will soon be taught that simply because they are sitting on black gold doesnt mean they own it.

I think a good relocation plan is in order.

I hope not many people share this opinion; Canada is sitting on one hell of a lot more oil than any Middle Eastern country, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia. Does that mean we don't own it, and if you guys want it you have the right to just take it??

Actually, as far as countries inhabited by non-whites are concerned, this has historically been the American attitude. Noam Chomsky makes this observation numerous times in his works on American foreign policy. I don't have the time to go track it down now, but his books show that it's clearly stated even in official American government documents that "our resources" just happen to be located in "their countries" and "we" (the US govt at least) assume the right to take them. If the oil situation got really bad (Middle East consumed in wars and most oil export stops, that would remove about 1/4 of world output) I would not be at all surprised to see the US govt put huge pressure on Canada to give exclusive access to those tar sands to the US, and to resort to any force necessary if it wasn't granted 'willingly'. It's been the historical pattern of US behavior. Take what you want because you're the biggest galoot around and you can. The only difference with Canada would be that the victims would be (mostly) 'white' this time.

ToddT · #18 July 17th, 2006, 07:53 PM

Dizzy, you going a tad over board, hte US needs to move away from oil, sadly the oil barons have far to much say about how things go in congress, they could put brakes on alot of things that go in the executive office, if they weren't getting thier own gifts.

War In the middle east its a given, a soon as one of the terror groups gets a dirty bomb it'll set the ball rolling big time.

Renegade 13 · #19 July 17th, 2006, 07:57 PM

Yeah, that's a possibility. But I think the US wouldn't resort to force with Canada, I think we'd just merge into one large country. We're essentially the same anyways, cultures are quite similar. It'll happen eventually, even if the catalyst isn't oil.

Atrocities · #20 July 17th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Yes moving away from oil dependancy is something that must be done NOW. It should have been done in the late 70's and early 80's but we all know that the all might oil dollar speaks louder than common sense.

Now the oil voice doesn't have the same sirens call that it has held for so many years. Higher prices in oil will promote alternative, and soon the standard to oil.