|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Will there be an US-Iran war?
US is really gearing itself for another collision with Iran. Three cheers!
More people will die! more enemies to US.
More children will be rendered homeless and US can show their 'compassion' to the world by providing for them.
More of the Middle East economy will dwindle. US can provide for their well being and bring them back to normalcy. (In the bargain make more money for its businesses).
The Oil Prices will go up. Essex and all its friends in the Oil business can continue making record profits.
If there is any reason for the oil prices to go down, launch a war with Pakistan. After all, US is preparing for that too! right?
More people will die! more enemies to US.
More children will be rendered homeless and US can show their 'compassion' to the world by providing for them.
More of the Middle East economy will dwindle. US can provide for their well being and bring them back to normalcy. (In the bargain make more money for its businesses).
The Oil Prices will go up. Essex and all its friends in the Oil business can continue making record profits.
If there is any reason for the oil prices to go down, launch a war with Pakistan. After all, US is preparing for that too! right?
Yes there will be a war with Iran, and no it will not be the USA going after Iran.
Israel is funded by the US with military supplies and technology etc, and they appear they want to attack Iran in the near future.
ISRAEL will attack Iran, the US may help ISRAEL, but we will not make the mistake of sending our troops to war again, without 100% knowledge of what is going on.
And yes: I'm for the war in Iraq----finish what you started!
Israel is funded by the US with military supplies and technology etc, and they appear they want to attack Iran in the near future.
ISRAEL will attack Iran, the US may help ISRAEL, but we will not make the mistake of sending our troops to war again, without 100% knowledge of what is going on.
And yes: I'm for the war in Iraq----finish what you started!
There is a great possibility the America will attack Iran. Both sides are gearing themselves now, Iran so far have secured their Iranium site with anti-aircraft guns and the USA however have positioned their aircraft carrier in the middle east. The Bush administration will use their legal stay in Iraq to attack Iran that easy.
But the saddest thing of course are the consequences. I hope for this not to happen.
But the saddest thing of course are the consequences. I hope for this not to happen.
I think as long as Mr. Bush will stay in power of US, there is a chance to happen this. And, current trends shows that he will attack over Iran before he hand-over the power. That will be another disaster on the world after Iraq.
| ahamed wrote: |
| I think as long as Mr. Bush will stay in power of US, there is a chance to happen this. And, current trends shows that he will attack over Iran before he hand-over the power. That will be another disaster on the world after Iraq. |
For reasons I have posted in other threads, I do not think there will be an attack on Iran any time soon by any U.S. administration. Here is the short list:
1. Currently the general population and even religious leadership of Iran seem disenfranchised with Ahmadinejad. A U.S. attack, like any attack upon a country, will cause the people to rally around the proverbial flag instead of placing pressure upon their president to change course or vote him out of office. Thus, no U.S. president will jeopardize that by launching an attack.
2. Iran has an 800,000 man military. This does not include about 7 million suicide bomber volunteers. (I'm stating these off the top of my head, so I apologize for the lack of source material.) Iran controls terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. A U.S. attack, even a purely aerial one, would cause a widened war possibly along the Iraq/Iran border and definitely with terrorist activity against U.S. interests around the world. (The U.S. navy would brush the Iranian navy out the Arabian Gulf in less than 72 hours, however.)
3. Iran's nuclear program is widely dispersed and hardened against aerial bombardment in many areas. Success would require a sustained air campaign, and even then success could not be guaranteed because the United States simply does not know where all of Iran's nuclear program is. In order to take out hardened sites, the site would have to be secured on the ground temporarily (air assault) so that special forces could clear the site out and destroy it from within. This type of campaign would be costly and under any circumstance (argument 2) lead to a wider war.
I assume that you are from Riyadh and am therefore surprised by your comment. The KSA would probably welcome a U.S. attack on Iran if it were successful. The Shiite Persians are a much greater threat to the Gulf Arabs than they are to the United States or even Israel. Indications are that the KSA is once again seeking a nuclear capability (probably in response to the Iranian nuclear threat).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/saudi/index.html
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_40a.html
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/28/afx2629000.html
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
For reasons I have posted in other threads, I do not think there will be an attack on Iran any time soon by any U.S. administration. Here is the short list: 1. Currently the general population and even religious leadership of Iran seem disenfranchised with Ahmadinejad. A U.S. attack, like any attack upon a country, will cause the people to rally around the proverbial flag instead of placing pressure upon their president to change course or vote him out of office. Thus, no U.S. president will jeopardize that by launching an attack. |
Again I do agree with you that a war against Iran seems not logical. However, judging from the recent US-supported war of Israel against Lebanon, a war against Iran is very much possible.
| Quote: |
|
2. Iran has an 800,000 man military. This does not include about 7 million suicide bomber volunteers. (I'm stating these off the top of my head, so I apologize for the lack of source material.) |
Your use of the term "suicide bomber" is misleading here. Iran is Mostly Shiites and Shiites are generally victims of suicide bombers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The only case when Shiites used a similar thing to "suicide bombing" was in Lebanon in the 80s of the last century during the Israeli invasion. It was very much limited and restricted to military targets only, something that is similar to the Japanese Kamikaz. Shiites are now generally against suicide bombers.
| Quote: |
|
(The U.S. navy would brush the Iranian navy out the Arabian Gulf in less than 72 hours, however.) |
Well it is actually not that easy. There is a huge presence of American forces in the Gulf (historically called Persian Gulf. ) Unlike Iraq, Iran has a long sea borders. This widespread US presence represnt some easy military targets for Iran. Iran could cause huge losses for Americans. If Americans are now talking about mistakes and difficulties in Iraq, they might be talking about catastrophes in Iran and the Gulf!
| Quote: |
|
I assume that you are from Riyadh and am therefore surprised by your comment. The KSA would probably welcome a U.S. attack on Iran if it were successful. The Shiite Persians are a much greater threat to the Gulf Arabs than they are to the United States or even Israel. Indications are that the KSA is once again seeking a nuclear capability (probably in response to the Iranian nuclear threat). |
It is not about Shiites or Sunnis, it is going to be a major war across the whole Gulf area which no body would favor even if Iran and KSA are non-frienly to each other. Besides, there are around 2 millions of Shiites in KSA. Although Shiites are a minority among the Muslim world, they are actually a majority in the ME area. Another possible war in the Gulf means a major threat to all non-democratic fragile US-backed regimes in the region.[/quote]
From the humanitarian point of view war is bad. Democracies in the world stand for consensus. A respect for contra opinion.
A democracy that respects its people and is driven by its people should not do anything that it may not do to it's own people. What ever be the 'pressing' need for a war, it should be reconsidered a hundred time before embarking on it.
Just because some muslims crashed aircrafts into the twin towers, we cannot say that all muslims are terrorists.
Just because there are some terrorists originating from a country or certain rogue nations, it does not mean that all those numerous people in it are party to it.
Secondly, the only nation that has ever used a WMD in a war is US. No one else has ever done it. If the people in the world and particularly, the people in US have any mental picture of the sufferings of the Japs, then the nuclear test ban and further development of nuclear weapons or testing should be foresaken by the US rather than by any other country in the world.
It is true that every one (read China) is developing weaponry after weaponry to protect themselves not from any one else but from US. The global arms race is lead by US.
The question is, is US willing to call a halt to everything???
A democracy that respects its people and is driven by its people should not do anything that it may not do to it's own people. What ever be the 'pressing' need for a war, it should be reconsidered a hundred time before embarking on it.
Just because some muslims crashed aircrafts into the twin towers, we cannot say that all muslims are terrorists.
Just because there are some terrorists originating from a country or certain rogue nations, it does not mean that all those numerous people in it are party to it.
Secondly, the only nation that has ever used a WMD in a war is US. No one else has ever done it. If the people in the world and particularly, the people in US have any mental picture of the sufferings of the Japs, then the nuclear test ban and further development of nuclear weapons or testing should be foresaken by the US rather than by any other country in the world.
It is true that every one (read China) is developing weaponry after weaponry to protect themselves not from any one else but from US. The global arms race is lead by US.
The question is, is US willing to call a halt to everything???
| bangala wrote: | ||
Your use of the term "suicide bomber" is misleading here. Iran is Mostly Shiites and Shiites are generally victims of suicide bombers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The only case when Shiites used a similar thing to "suicide bombing" was in Lebanon in the 80s of the last century during the Israeli invasion. It was very much limited and restricted to military targets only, something that is similar to the Japanese Kamikaz. Shiites are now generally against suicide bombers. |
I was referring primarily to the Basij, originally established in 1980 to launch suicidal human wave attacks against Iraqi forces. They were used very effectively in both suicidal assaults and in mine clearing operations. (Every soldier can be a mine sweeper once.) Current Iranian estimates of the volunteer numbers approach 20 million. I heard 7 million from another estimate.
Global Security article
Wiki article
There are some indications of the formation of suicide bombing units as well:
http://www.meforum.org/article/1059
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118456,00.html
| bangala wrote: | ||
Well it is actually not that easy. There is a huge presence of American forces in the Gulf (historically called Persian Gulf. ) Unlike Iraq, Iran has a long sea borders. This widespread US presence represnt some easy military targets for Iran. Iran could cause huge losses for Americans. If Americans are now talking about mistakes and difficulties in Iraq, they might be talking about catastrophes in Iran and the Gulf! |
I am a proud sailor, so forgive my arrogance in the ability of my navy. However it is rightly placed in this circumstance. I would not refer to U.S. naval vessels as “easy military targets.” I don’t think 72 hours too long a time to take the Iranian navy out of action (with the exception of harassing operations and swarm tactics by small boats). If you wish to add surface to surface shore batteries to the U.S. target list, I’ll be conservative and give it a fortnight.
No fleet in the world can compete with the U.S. Navy. That is not arrogance, just a simple fact. The Iranian navy is certainly no match. I am not saying that they could not inflict any damage whatsoever, just that it is a losing prospect for Iran, especially if the United States strikes first.
Ironically, the only naval surface action of the United States since World War II was against the Iranian Navy in 1988:
Operation Praying Mantis
Current state of the Iranian Navy:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/navy.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm
Possible Iranian tactics:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548
| bangala wrote: |
| It is not about Shiites or Sunnis, it is going to be a major war across the whole Gulf area which no body would favor even if Iran and KSA are non-frienly to each other. Besides, there are around 2 millions of Shiites in KSA. Although Shiites are a minority among the Muslim world, they are actually a majority in the ME area. Another possible war in the Gulf means a major threat to all non-democratic fragile US-backed regimes in the region. |
I still think (just supposition on my part) that the Saud family would be happy for the United States to take Iran down a few notches. They certainly don’t want Iran to be a major power in the region.
Respectfully,
M
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| Just because some muslims crashed aircrafts into the twin towers, we cannot say that all muslims are terrorists. |
No person in U.S. leadership is doing so. However, all terrorist activity against the United States and its interests has been conducted by Muslim extremists, with very few exceptions.
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| Just because there are some terrorists originating from a country or certain rogue nations, it does not mean that all those numerous people in it are party to it. |
No nation has a population of one mind. I don’t think anyone in leadership is arguing that to be the case either.
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| Secondly, the only nation that has ever used a WMD in a war is US. No one else has ever done it. |
That is blatantly wrong. WMDs include not only nuclear but biological and chemical weapons. Biological and chemical weapons have been used for centuries in rudimentary forms. (e.g. Smallpox infected blankets given to natives. Poison-tipped arrows.) Germany used mustard, chlorine, and phosgene gases in World War I. Japan used chemical weapons against the Chinese during World War II. Germany used chemical agents to murder prisoners in concentration camps. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War as well as against its own citizenry.
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| If the people in the world and particularly, the people in US have any mental picture of the sufferings of the Japs, then the nuclear test ban and further development of nuclear weapons or testing should be foresaken by the US rather than by any other country in the world. |
If you wish to debate the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I am more than willing in another thread if one has not been started on the subject already. I will make a few points though:
1. Morally there is no difference between Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Dresden/Hamburg. The only difference is that the Japanese cities required only two planes with two atomic bombs, whereas the German cities required thousands of bombers over several days and nights. The same is true of the firebombing of Tokyo. The results (minus the fallout) were the same.
2. It ended a war that possibly would have dragged on with even worse consequences and casualties had conventional weapons and techniques alone been used. (i.e. an invasion of Japan)
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| It is true that every one (read China) is developing weaponry after weaponry to protect themselves not from any one else but from US. The global arms race is lead by US.
The question is, is US willing to call a halt to everything??? |
This is a fallacy. The United States is not checking countries off of a list of places to conquer in a bid to rule the world. Nations compete just as businesses do and just as individuals do. You mentioned China. They want regional hegemony in the Pacific. Currently, the United States enjoys that position. One primary point of contention is Taiwan, where China does not enjoy freedom of action because of the United States’ power.
The U.S. has no intention of attacking China, as you implied. That is irrational nonsense! However, for China to someday gain the position of Pacific hegemony and have freedom of action in the western Pacific it must be able to compete with the United States militarily in the region. “Arms races” are a natural by-product of competing national interests. If the U.S. were not competing with China in the Pacific I guarantee you Japan would be, as they have in the past. (Actually Japan and China are competing, even militarily as there are some major oil fields in dispute in the Pacific. However any arms race between those long-standing enemies is tempered by the U.S.-Japan alliance as well as the U.S. written Japanese constitution.)
If the only reason for a country to develop weapons is to protect themselves from the U.S., why do U.S. allies have militaries?
As for nuclear weapons, it is impossible to give up something once it is discovered. If the United States, for example, demonstrably gave up all nuclear weapons, some other country would take advantage of this weakness. The U.S. would be at the mercy of any country willing to deploy nuclear weapons.
It’s not as if the world was absent weapons and warfare before the U.S. came along. Nations seemed perfectly capable of competing and fighting wars before the United States existed.
Respectfully,
M
The United States may get into a war with Iran. But def not right now. The US military can not be stretched any more then it currently is.
Possibly once we lower troop numbers in iraq we will move into iran. Notice I said lower not leave iraq. We will probably never leave iraq for a very very very long time. heck we still haven't left korea.
Possibly once we lower troop numbers in iraq we will move into iran. Notice I said lower not leave iraq. We will probably never leave iraq for a very very very long time. heck we still haven't left korea.
| Talk2Tom11 wrote: |
| The United States may get into a war with Iran. But def not right now. The US military can not be stretched any more then it currently is.
Possibly once we lower troop numbers in iraq we will move into iran. Notice I said lower not leave iraq. We will probably never leave iraq for a very very very long time. heck we still haven't left korea. |
What you have said is very true! I don't think we are going to get out of Iraq or Korea or for that matter Afghanistan. And I think we will still get into Iran and not get out of it.
Why have you left out our bases in Saudi and the rest of the world? Why are those new missiles being installed in East Europe when there is no real threat from Russia any more?
rshanthakumar, you need to settle down and accept that you don't understand a lot of stuff.
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| Why have you left out our bases in Saudi and the rest of the world? Why are those new missiles being installed in East Europe when there is no real threat from Russia any more? |
We have bases in Saudi Arabia for very strategic reasons. (Maintaining oil suppplies for us and our allies.) Bases elsewhere in the world are for strategic reasons as well.
The new missiles you refer to are defensive, not offensive weapons. For Russia to be offended by that is like a U.S. civilian being offended because the local police force decides to start wearing body armor. Sure, it places you at a disadvantage if you decide to get into a firegifight with the police, but why are you even considering it?
President Putin argues that it places NATO at an advantage if we choose to attack Russia. And I understand that. Russia has a history of being invaded by Western Europe, so I sympathize. However, Eastern Europe has a history of being conquered and brutalized by Russia. Hence I can understand their desire for a missile defense system.
Putin also wants NATO to be dissolved since it was formed as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union. With the Western powers having won the Cold War, he understandably wonders why NATO remains. By its nature it restricts Russian hegemony and influence.
For me, I hope some day the differences between Russia and the West can be resolved to the point that we extend an invitation for them to join NATO as well.
Respectfully,
M
I think the poll should be "should the USA invade Iran"
I must admit im very uncomfortable with countries like Iran and North Korea developing nuclear technology/weapons,at the same time who are we to say they cant have the technology if we have it,i do think America wants to invade Iran,but after the illegal invasion of Iraq, (no weapons of mass destruction found)... i think getting international support for it will be very difficult.
The photos released by the Americans as supposed proof of Iranian involvement,most of them were dated as far back as 2 years ago,so why if they have had evidence of Iranian involvement,have they left it till now to tell the world,my guess is, because Iran wont stop their research into nuclear technoligies,so America needs another way of stopping them becoming a nuclear power.
Our reliance on middle east oil,is what drives the need for peace in the middle east,instead of constantly getting involved in stuff we have no right to get involved with to maintain supplies of oil,perhaps America and her allies should switch from their reliance on cars and structure their cities and industries accordingly,and for businesses to look for alternative forms of energy to power them.
I must admit im very uncomfortable with countries like Iran and North Korea developing nuclear technology/weapons,at the same time who are we to say they cant have the technology if we have it,i do think America wants to invade Iran,but after the illegal invasion of Iraq, (no weapons of mass destruction found)... i think getting international support for it will be very difficult.
The photos released by the Americans as supposed proof of Iranian involvement,most of them were dated as far back as 2 years ago,so why if they have had evidence of Iranian involvement,have they left it till now to tell the world,my guess is, because Iran wont stop their research into nuclear technoligies,so America needs another way of stopping them becoming a nuclear power.
Our reliance on middle east oil,is what drives the need for peace in the middle east,instead of constantly getting involved in stuff we have no right to get involved with to maintain supplies of oil,perhaps America and her allies should switch from their reliance on cars and structure their cities and industries accordingly,and for businesses to look for alternative forms of energy to power them.
| truespeed wrote: |
|
Our reliance on middle east oil,is what drives the need for peace in the middle east,instead of constantly getting involved in stuff we have no right to get involved with to maintain supplies of oil,perhaps America and her allies should switch from their reliance on cars and structure their cities and industries accordingly,and for businesses to look for alternative forms of energy to power them. |
I honestly don't think we have enough time left. We need oil just as much as we need water. Therefore, I see nothing "immoral" with fighting over a resource vital to our survival.
I personally think an international crisis will occur in the 2012 - 2020 time frame. The most radical estimates foresee a crisis between 2007 - 2010. No one is going to be oil independent before 2020.
Without a plentiful supply of oil, I believe the Earth is far beyond its carrying capacity for the human species. (People talk about cars , but that is not the problem. Agriculture is the problem. Production and distribution to feed the world is wholly dependent on oil.) Thus, a crisis could/will mean the deaths of multiple millions if not over a billion globally.
Respectfully,
M
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| US is really gearing itself for another collision with Iran. Three cheers!
More people will die! more enemies to US. More children will be rendered homeless and US can show their 'compassion' to the world by providing for them. More of the Middle East economy will dwindle. US can provide for their well being and bring them back to normalcy. (In the bargain make more money for its businesses). The Oil Prices will go up. Essex and all its friends in the Oil business can continue making record profits. If there is any reason for the oil prices to go down, launch a war with Pakistan. After all, US is preparing for that too! right? |
Shoot, Iran already hates the USA. They've had shrines to how much they hate the USA. This is nothing new. Eventually, we will probably need to go and police Iran, because their ambitions are simply caustic to peace. They hate Israel, they hate the USA, and apparently they hate the Sunnis too. On the plus side, when the time comes to squelch this bully, Iran's karma will likely be at an incredible low.
I hope the USA doesn't take policing action just yet. It seems that if we are to gain global support, genocide against the Kurds isn't enough. ...For the many of the citizens of the USA or for many countries. ...I wonder what will be.
But I suppose they may have a little less to worry about when it comes to Iran obtaining radio isotopes and quite probably nuclear weapons.... ...Maybe.
I really can't see how there could be a war with Iran. People want to run Bush out of office right now, so adding another war would be really bad. I think if you asked Bush and he could tell you the truth, he'd tell you that he'd love to go to war with Iran.
I hate to say it but Bush is looking more and more like a war mongrel.
I hate to say it but Bush is looking more and more like a war mongrel.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
I honestly don't think we have enough time left. We need oil just as much as we need water. Therefore, I see nothing "immoral" with fighting over a resource vital to our survival. I personally think an international crisis will occur in the 2012 - 2020 time frame. The most radical estimates foresee a crisis between 2007 - 2010. No one is going to be oil independent before 2020. Without a plentiful supply of oil, I believe the Earth is far beyond its carrying capacity for the human species. (People talk about cars , but that is not the problem. Agriculture is the problem. Production and distribution to feed the world is wholly dependent on oil.) Thus, a crisis could/will mean the deaths of multiple millions if not over a billion globally. Respectfully, M |
To say its moral to invade a country for something they have that we want is ridiculous,its like me saying i can break into your house because you have a laptop i want,the fact is we only discovered oil as an energy source about 200 years ago,as a spieces we lived fine without it for thousands of years,i am pretty sure we can find a way of consuming less oil and changing the way we live our lives in both the short term and the long term.
I feel that there will only be a war with Iran, if it happens while Bush is in power. This is because I highly dought there are many people dumb enough to honestly go attack an industrialized nations which is believed to have nuclear weapons.
| truespeed wrote: | ||
To say its moral to invade a country for something they have that we want is ridiculous,its like me saying i can break into your house because you have a laptop i want,the fact is we only discovered oil as an energy source about 200 years ago,as a spieces we lived fine without it for thousands of years,i am pretty sure we can find a way of consuming less oil and changing the way we live our lives in both the short term and the long term. |
True! it appears insane to walk into the other persons yard for what you want. But human history is littered with such incidents through out. What is happening with Bush today is not something particular about Bush. Many people take recourse to Darwin. This is a question of survival. Therefore, there may not be anything wrong in attacking someone for what they want.
If the person who has the precious little things doesn't know how to protect it, then he is not the right person to hold it. In history, we find this being applied to all possessions; money, power, women...
But unfortunately, this is not a question of survival only for Bush and his oil hunt. It is a greater struggle for some one else too. The Islamic outfit that things infidels have no right to live on this earth. They have been saying this since the days of the crusades. Let us wait and see who survives!! We or they! But only one will live one century down!
| iZen wrote: |
| I feel that there will only be a war with Iran, if it happens while Bush is in power. This is because I highly dought there are many people dumb enough to honestly go attack an industrialized nations which is believed to have nuclear weapons. |
who said they have nukes? that is humbug. They would not stand 15 days of war.
| truespeed wrote: |
|
To say its moral to invade a country for something they have that we want is ridiculous,its like me saying i can break into your house because you have a laptop i want,the fact is we only discovered oil as an energy source about 200 years ago,as a spieces we lived fine without it for thousands of years,i am pretty sure we can find a way of consuming less oil and changing the way we live our lives in both the short term and the long term. |
Here I must respectfully disagree, not about the legality of invading a country (I agree with you there) just over the point of survival. I compared oil to water, not a luxury item as you did. If a person is going to die for lack of water, are you going to judge him immoral for fighting a man who denies him the water?
Yes, humans can survive without oil. As the husband of an anthropologist and an historian by education I am fully aware of man's ability to live without the technology of the Industrial Revolution. That was not my point either. My point is that civilization as we know it cannot survive without oil or a technology that replaces it. The human population at its current level depends upon oil. Do you think the Earth can support 5 billion hunter gatherers or 5 billion members of 17th century level agricultural societies? I don't think so. The United States alone provides tens of billions of dollars in agricultural exports per year.
Without oil, food is not massively harvested and processed, let alone transported by ships, trains, and trucks.
I am not speaking of the United States attacking Iran or any other country for their oil. In fact, if the interim solution to the coming lack of oil is to create oil from say coal, the United States would be the world's largest supplier as it contains the world's largest coal deposits. Under any circumstances the United States populace would be better off than most in a global oil crunch, I believe.
However, other countries would suffer far more than the U.S. if an oil crisis occurred. To say that any country will sit idly by while their society suffers if a neighboring (and weaker) nation full of oil lies nearby is naive. An oil war (or wars) becomes a fearful possibility.
Furthermore, the United States would intervene in any attempt by another nation to take Middle Eastern territory or deny access to that region. (The Carter Doctrine)
Another potential flash point in such a crisis could be the East China Sea.
Based on what I have seen (and I am by no means a left or right radical), we are too late to make a change. There is simply not enough time left to introduce a technology to supplant oil. A crisis will hit before a technology arrives to mitigate the impact of global oil shortages.
I pray that I am wrong.
Here is a link to a 2005 paper on the subject: http://www.pppl.gov/publications/pics/Oil_Peaking_1205.pdf
Forgive me for digressing off the thread's subject.
Respectfully,
M
The possibelity is their no doubt about that, but with the current status of irak i think the US would first want to stabalize that or else the might get more problems with their own people and allies that with iran.
I can see it happening, in fact I could see Bush sending his boys (and grils too of course) to any nation that pose a threat to his agenda - whether that is the agenda he is claiming or not is not so easy to call.
I am a scpetic in case you didn't already know.
I am a scpetic in case you didn't already know.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Yes, humans can survive without oil. As the husband of an anthropologist and an historian by education I am fully aware of man's ability to live without the technology of the Industrial Revolution. That was not my point either. My point is that civilization as we know it cannot survive without oil or a technology that replaces it. The human population at its current level depends upon oil. Do you think the Earth can support 5 billion hunter gatherers or 5 billion members of 17th century level agricultural societies? I don't think so. The United States alone provides tens of billions of dollars in agricultural exports per year. Without oil, food is not massively harvested and processed, let alone transported by ships, trains, and trucks. |
Im not sure how long we have before the worlds oil is used up,but im guessing its a long way away,if i needed water to survive today,like you say i would steal that water,but today America doesn't need Iraq or Iranian oil.
We have a long time to make alternative fuel sources,nuclear power plants could charge the electric tractors that plow the fields,or even solar panel tractors,in fact all machinery could be electric,powered by nuclear plants,but this is in the distant future,im sure by then they will be using fuel sources as yet not even thought of.
You paint a dark picture of the future,lets hope your wrong.
| truespeed wrote: |
|
Im not sure how long we have before the worlds oil is used up,but im guessing its a long way away,if i needed water to survive today,like you say i would steal that water,but today America doesn't need Iraq or Iranian oil. We have a long time to make alternative fuel sources,nuclear power plants could charge the electric tractors that plow the fields,or even solar panel tractors,in fact all machinery could be electric,powered by nuclear plants,but this is in the distant future,im sure by then they will be using fuel sources as yet not even thought of. You paint a dark picture of the future,lets hope your wrong. |
Yes, we have a long time before the world's oil is used up. However, I am not speaking of that. I'm speaking of the world simply not having enough.
According to many experts, that will occur between now and 2025. It's a controversial theory known as "Peak Oil." The link I provided in my previous comment provides an excellent synopsis.
I hope I'm (and they are) wrong too.
Respectfully,
M
President Bush !
Cannot afford any more wars !
Cannot afford any more wars !
Really it is so heavy to live in the world and calmness 
Bush unmust was be a president, to him place in armie
P.S. Sorry for bad English
Bush unmust was be a president, to him place in armie
P.S. Sorry for bad English
When the life plays truant
When the sky is lighted by the bursting bombs
When the world wakes up to the smell of rotten flesh
then we shall see the end of war!
when men and women die miserable
when children are killed like sheep
when sick men have no place to rest
then we shall see the end of war!
When god's words lose their strength
when men grab the other man's land
when girls go dry of tears
then we shall see the end of war!
When end to end there is a rain of fire
when men of wisdom have no truth to speak
when evil come out and dance
then we shall see the end of war!
When the sky is lighted by the bursting bombs
When the world wakes up to the smell of rotten flesh
then we shall see the end of war!
when men and women die miserable
when children are killed like sheep
when sick men have no place to rest
then we shall see the end of war!
When god's words lose their strength
when men grab the other man's land
when girls go dry of tears
then we shall see the end of war!
When end to end there is a rain of fire
when men of wisdom have no truth to speak
when evil come out and dance
then we shall see the end of war!
In all honesty I don't know if the US has the resources to attack Iran given its increased presence in Iraq and its ongoing presence in Afghanistan.
I don't see it being planned under Bush. If Iran does something stupid (not impossible given the leadership) then I think that the US' response won't be to invade but to bomb.
I think that it's something they have planned, but for the future.
I don't see it being planned under Bush. If Iran does something stupid (not impossible given the leadership) then I think that the US' response won't be to invade but to bomb.
I think that it's something they have planned, but for the future.
 |