World War III, anyone?

[Miner]

With interdependency between the nations so much that the real world war 3 will be in words, economic front and savaging small nations like Somalia etc.
It is not of China, US, Russia's interest to get into a WW 3. Iraq has paid enough lessons to Uncle Bush and team. We all got suffered with low dollar, high fuel price etc. America economically suffered most with wrong calculation. So was learning from Afganistan.

IMO there will be fringe wars between India Pakistan, Kosovo fighting, East Timor incidence, Sri Lankan LTTE, drug war in Bolivia, Congo and similar, ethnic cleansing in Africa but no WWW 3. I meant WWW = World War and not War of Words as will continue to happen between Russia, US, CHina and others and lame duck UN.

 

[Superfly]

Changing rain fall patterns meaning dry rivers, mass migration, etc etc... disputes over sub sea resources etc etc...

Taiwan , the Chinese have already been trying ( but can not do ) to create a missile capable of knocking out a US aircraft carrier mid ocean, thereby having a free hand to attack Taiwan... one would think that may start a war if it happened...

 

[Tysonboss1]

How is your friend coping?

Ok, I hope.

I havn't spoken to him recently. We weren't close friends, just work mates. He got hurt about a year after I left the army,

I am still close to alot of my other mates working in the same unit, including a couple of guys who were there when he was hurt, Thats why I was shocked to find out he had been hurt so badly, because it said next to nothing when I saw it on the news so I thought it was not serious, It was only when one of my other mates called me that I found outwhat had happened.

What basically happened was Lids was a bomb tech and during a route clearing patrol one on the lead searchers noticed some tell tail signs of a possible roadside bomb (this was not uncommon lids had apparently dealt with a number of these during his time in country), because lids was the bomb tech he was then called foward to clear the bomb so the group coud move forward safely how ever as he approached the device it detonated nearly killing him,... he injuries were so extreme that The docotors said if it was not for his high level of fittness he would have died.

 

[Superfly]

If you'd bother to do any research into the history of China, I'd like for you to find me the number of times they have started wars to further their imperial ambitions...

If you ask that question in 20 years you may get a different answer.... nothing better than a war to enhance the national spirit for the "motherland" feeling and the communists may need to play that card in time to keep hold of power.

We have more to worry about with our supposed friends who actively encourage us to poison our air, food and water than those who are more interested in trading with us and doing business.

Blatant anti-Americanism...

If the Chinese could shoot us and just take the Iron Ore... do u think they would.... thanks to America that could never happen...get it ...

 

[mayk]

^^^^^
I , for one, welcome our new American Overlords...

 

[Tysonboss1]

If the Chinese could shoot us and just take the Iron Ore... do u think they would.... thanks to America that could never happen...get it ...

why would they start a war to capture resources when they can simply buy them at the market rate and keep the peace.

think about it,... China relies on trading with the rest of the world.

If they started a world war,... no one would trade with them,... so none of there manufactured goods would be sold,.... so they would have no need for the resources to make the manfactued goods,.... So they would have no reason to capture the resources.

Trust me it is cheaper to Buy resouces than it is to fight a war to capture them,

 

[Struzball]

Trust me it is cheaper to Buy resouces than it is to fight a war to capture them,

i.e. Iraq war for oil?

 

[Tysonboss1]

i.e. Iraq war for oil?

Even if that war was purely for oil USA has spent alot more fighting that war than they will get from the oil, Because they are paying for any oil they take any way.

The USA has no problem paying for the OIL they use,... they just don't want to Buy it from an evil dictator, So they invaded Iraq to remove the dictator and develop a free market in which they can purchase the oil from.

Australia is already a free market so it would make no sense to invade us to win resources that you can just buy at the market rate.

 

[wayneL]

So they invaded Iraq to remove the dictator and develop a free market in which they can purchase the oil from.

You were making hell of a lot of sense before this bit. Using that logic, we better get to and invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, The Emirates, Brunei, perhaps a few African countries...

And why stop at oil? Why not invade dictatorships we trade other things with... cheap tat for instance. China anyone?

There was a lot more to Eye Rack than removing a dictator... which was never the justification for war anyway.

 

[Tysonboss1]

You were making hell of a lot of sense before this bit. Using that logic, we better get to and invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, The Emirates, Brunei, perhaps a few African countries...

And why stop at oil? Why not invade dictatorships we trade other things with... cheap tat for instance. China anyone?

There was a lot more to Eye Rack than removing a dictator... which was never the justification for war anyway.

Do you think that if it were Australia with the oil reserves instead of IRAQ they woud have invaded us,...

Or do you think they would have just set up lon term trade aggreements,..

 

[wayneL]

Do you think that if it were Australia with the oil reserves instead of IRAQ they woud have invaded us,...

Or do you think they would have just set up long term trade aggreements,..

That's deflecting the point.

No they would not invade Australia (though some may argue they already have non-militarily). But the premise for invading Iraq was the threat to the West from WMD and/or Saddam was involved with 911. Both proved to be utterly fallacious, and most of us knew that all along anyway.

Now we have goal posts on wheels as the reason for invasion is shifted at will by any war apologists.

What the real agenda is, remains the privy of the Neo-Con cabal currently infesting Washington. But to suggest that the reason Iraq was invaded was to bring democracy is outrageous and preposterous... and can be shot down on on a number of premises.

Please, that's just propaganda.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Iraq wasn't towing the line they were about to start selling oil in Euros and other currencies just before this happened they were invaded.

Look at Iran a week before they were to open their oil boarse in currencies other than USD 5 undersea cables are cut severing all the internet links to Iran thus postponing the boarse. Iran will be invaded its just a question of time.

If any reasonable amount of oil started selling in other foriegn currencies the greenback would plunge even faster than it is now.

The only reason Chinas growth isn't 20% PA is because they can't get enough oil to drive the economy.

Also China has over 1 billion people great man power right ? well the US now has control over billions of barrels of the cheapest oil in the world. it costs $1 to pump a barrel of oil from wells in iraq (doesn't include processing which is about $20-30 because of the high quality of the oil) Think about it one barrel of oil contains the chemical energy equivalent to about 15000 + man hours of work !

So with super cheap oil they are basically competeing with super cheap and abundant labour. Does anyone really think the US is paying over $100 a barrel for iraqi oil ? even if they were all the profits are going straight back to the US through dodgy contractors which charge the Iraqi Gov heaps for basically worthless construction.

The US will not fight china directly if they don't have to, they will contain them at first then divide and conquer. Think about how many former soviet countries are joining NATO and now look at Tibet. You establish democratic funds and political groups and get the civilians to do the hard work of changing the power of a country. I bet my @ss that the uprising in Tibet has american money and fingers all over it. I wouldn't be surprised if giving the olympics to China wasn't part of the plan to further alienate them and try to break up the government. With inflation running high there is even more unrest in China because the majority of the poor are getting screwed, you still the unrest a little and quite quickly you can snowball the situation. Think about the benefits that the US policy of high inflation is having on its foriegn interests.

China may have one billion people but without guns, car and boats to transport them and turn them into soldier they are cannon fodder. Besides if we topple them with revoultion we look like the good guys.

I for one would rather live under US control rather than Russian or Chinese.

 

[Tysonboss1]

But to suggest that the reason Iraq was invaded was to bring democracy is outrageous and preposterous... and can be shot down on on a number of premises.

Please, that's just propaganda.

Agreed,...

I don't think that Iraq was invaded to bring democacy,...

I am just saying it was to try an install pupput government that is more receptive of the US, and hopefully better for the local population,... which the us has failed to do.

 

[Superfly]

why would they start a war to capture resources when they can simply buy them at the market rate and keep the peace.

think about it,... China relies on trading with the rest of the world.

If they started a world war,... no one would trade with them,... so none of there manufactured goods would be sold,.... so they would have no need for the resources to make the manfactued goods,.... So they would have no reason to capture the resources.

Trust me it is cheaper to Buy resouces than it is to fight a war to capture them,

Was referring to a previous post that alluded to America only wanting to poison our air, food & water, while the good Chinese are interested in trading & doing business with us... point was that China isn't trading with Australia out of the kindness of their hearts... they would pay 2 cents a tonne if they could...and China is a polluter of emense porportions... and because of the one party state, its not even clear of how much polluting is going on... not reported and controlled like in the US and Australia...and our comrade Rudd signed Kyoto and what happened... just that now America is left alone to try to make China and India curb their out put.....

 

[Bushman]

Trust me it is cheaper to Buy resouces than it is to fight a war to capture them,

Good point. Just ask Japan that question. 1m souls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would say 'buy' rather than 'fight' if they had that option.

 

[Superfly]

That's deflecting the point.

No they would not invade Australia (though some may argue they already have non-militarily).

Many may not aswell..

But the premise for invading Iraq was the threat to the West from WMD and/or Saddam was involved with 911. Both proved to be utterly fallacious, and most of us knew that all along anyway.

People forget or choose to ingnore that nothing but 600 kms of desert stood between the US tanks armies and Baghdad in 1991.. but the US withdrew to Kuwait and let the UN handle Saddam... and look what happened... Saddam thumbed his nose for 12 years at the world, played cat and mouse with UN inspectors, had WMD's in the past and had used them on the Kurds and Iran and there was no way to 100% be sure that the WMD were no longer. If so then why where there UN inspectors in Iraq if it's so "utterly fallacious"... Iraq oil revenue is going to the Iraq Central Government.. and yes some of that will be used to pay for western contract companies in Iraq... but what oil fields in the world will you not find western companies working... Iraq's oil infustructure has suffered from decades of no investment and needs a great deal of costly updating.. something that any country would need the western contractors for. Iraq is bordered by Syria & Iran which both are backing the unrest...

Now we have goal posts on wheels as the reason for invasion is shifted at will by any war apologists.

What the real agenda is, remains the privy of the Neo-Con cabal currently infesting Washington. But to suggest that the reason Iraq was invaded was to bring democracy is outrageous and preposterous... and can be shot down on on a number of premises.

Remember that since 9/11 there has been no attack on American or Australian soil...the Clinton Admin sat back (launched some missiles) while the terroists trained in camps and got sophisticated in attacking the west from bases in Afganistan. The world changed after 9/11 and President G W Bush will one day the remembered as a good man in a hard situation. The left will always complain whatever America does, because it was the US that halted communism.

 

[wayneL]

People forget or choose to ingnore that nothing but 600 kms of desert stood between the US tanks armies and Baghdad in 1991.. but the US withdrew to Kuwait and let the UN handle Saddam... and look what happened... Saddam thumbed his nose for 12 years at the world, played cat and mouse with UN inspectors, had WMD's in the past and had used them on the Kurds and Iran and there was no way to 100% be sure that the WMD were no longer. If so then why where there UN inspectors in Iraq if it's so "utterly fallacious"... Iraq oil revenue is going to the Iraq Central Government.. and yes some of that will be used to pay for western contract companies in Iraq... but what oil fields in the world will you not find western companies working... Iraq's oil infustructure has suffered from decades of no investment and needs a great deal of costly updating.. something that any country would need the western contractors for. Iraq is bordered by Syria & Iran which both are backing the unrest...

I don't think they ignore 1991 at all. There was something dodgy about that whole schmozzle as well.

But let's take for granted for a moment that the talk of some sort of dodginess is in the minds of the foil hatters. Then yes, the US led coalition should have gone all the way in '91. That was a so called legal war.

The fact is that they didn't. Their bad; this invasion however, has been admitted to be on a totally false premise. Iraq was never any threat to the west and particularly the US. That's laughable.

Then to start pointing fingers at Iran and Syria for sponsoring unrest? LOL! That a standard CIA tactic as well. The US has had it's fingers in so many pies it's unreal.

Remember that since 9/11 there has been no attack on American or Australian soil...the Clinton Admin sat back (launched some missiles) while the terroists trained in camps and got sophisticated in attacking the west from bases in Afganistan.

Well, that is a long debate... even the premise is a long debate. Lets just say that many look at this entirely differently.

Also you are confusing the invasion of Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq. There are a great bulk of people who think the former was justified, but not the latter.

The world changed after 9/11 and President G W Bush will one day the remembered as a good man in a hard situation.

LOL! I think there is a snowflakes chance in hell of that... outside the hard right, neo-con mindset anyway.

The left will always complain whatever America does, because it was the US that halted communism.

Absolute and utter tosh. What, you watch nothing but Fox? Let me tell you something. I am a natural conservative, I am in the process of join the local Tory party here in the UK and probably 1 in 4 have any feelings of support for the US actions in the middle east.

That is the argument of last resort and quite demonstrably false. A Bill O'Reillyesque slogan with no foundation in fact. Absolute rubbish.

Let's leave the slogans imprinted by propaganda out of the debate, hey?

Cheers

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Saddam was once a big US ally, they armed him against Iran and gave hime chemical weapons.

It is definitly cheaper to buy resources than fight for them but fact is the guy who own's the resources and is selling them to you basically has the fate of your country in his hands. Imagine what would happen if the Saudis stopped selling oil to the US even for a week!

Its about control of the resources, Oil been the most important. The only reason Germany lost WW2 is because they had very little oil where as the russians had Baku and the US had Texas. The US must have middle east oil to ensure it wins any future war against China or Russia. Also by taking control of the majoirty of the worlds oil resource you can wage economic war which i think will be far more paletable by the West. I still reakon that th US will be in Iran by spring this year.

Sure the US lied about why it went into Iraq, just as there are obvious inconsistantcies in what actually happened on 9/11
(but thats a whole other arguement) They have so many covert operations around the world and I am sure they have strategic long term plans which is aimed at firming up their status as world power. But realistically people are been nieve in thinking that they are evil or that the war in Iraq is wrong. The Western world could stop the war in Iraq and afghanistan just the same way that we could all sell our mc mansions and move into units and give half our life savings away to help people in Africa modernise. All that would do is dig our own graves. The world is overpopulated, all resources are finite, every empire eventually falls, no species ever lies for ever and our world wonj't always be the same.

I know that innocent people are dying all over the world for the worst reasons and i feel bad about it and I don't want it to happen but that isn't going to stop it it has always happened and will always continue to happen unless we fundamentally change the nature of been Human. All life is destined too survival of the fittest its just in our case now individual pyshical strength means nothing.

 

[mayk]

In case of War, I think Australia is the Best country to be in, away from rest of the world

 

[Superfly]

=wayneL;276385]

I don't think they ignore 1991 at all. There was something dodgy about that whole schmozzle as well.

What happened was the US gave the UN 12 years to sort Saddam out...

But let's take for granted for a moment that the talk of some sort of dodginess is in the minds of the foil hatters. Then yes, the US led coalition should have gone all the way in '91. That was a so called legal war.

No ... the UN should have acted and removed Saddam when he broke the UN mandates...

The fact is that they didn't. Their bad; this invasion however, has been admitted to be on a totally false premise. Iraq was never any threat to the west and particularly the US. That's laughable.

So Iraq never fired any scud missles at Israel and was never trying to develop long range missles...

Israel never had to carry out an air strike on a nuclear weapons program inside Iraq...

Then to start pointing fingers at Iran and Syria for sponsoring unrest? LOL! That a standard CIA tactic as well. The US has had it's fingers in so many pies it's unreal.

...you are now going so far as to say the CIA are the one's giving ammo to the insurgents in Iraq... take a step back and check yourself... you really think that... really...

Well, that is a long debate... even the premise is a long debate. Lets just say that many look at this entirely differently.

No it's not... Clinton ( Dem ) did little to nothing ...even sent a signal from the events in Somalia that if u kill some of us then we will pack up and go home...

Also you are confusing the invasion of Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq. There are a great bulk of people who think the former was justified, but not the latter.
LOL! I think there is a snowflakes chance in hell of that... outside the hard right, neo-con mindset anyway.
Absolute and utter tosh. What, you watch nothing but Fox? Let me tell you something. I am a natural conservative, I am in the process of join the local Tory party here in the UK and probably 1 in 4 have any feelings of support for the US actions in the middle east.

That is the argument of last resort and quite demonstrably false. A Bill O'Reillyesque slogan with no foundation in fact. Absolute rubbish.

Let's leave the slogans imprinted by propaganda out of the debate, hey?

Cheers

[/quote]

So you think that the mad mullahs in Iran should be allowed to become nuclear... words will not stop them...

Will stand corrected if you could show me that it was not America that halted communism...that has nothing to do with Fox.. you may hate Fox, along with all your other M Moore fan clubers, but the Left always hates being asked the hard questions...something that Fox does very well from both sides of politics, unlike CNN, who I was watching President Bush's last speech on the progress in Iraq live on CNN then CNN go straight to Basra and show as much trouble as they can for as long as they can on that ONE city and nothing about anything else in the whole country of Iraq, with the anchors going out of their way to diss what the President had just said...why be so negative in reporting, ok always show what's going on, but show ALL of whats going on, not half the picture... it's not only what CNN show, it's also what they don't show and say... thats a major reason why so many think that one war is justified and one is not...

Also maybe why people with views like you have, are so aggressive when it comes to Fox...