Conquer Club

It has been sixty years since weve had one....and now it looks as if the middle east will be the staging ground for the next one. Is it just me, or does anyone else notice all of this?

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.

Either question is good, i say it will be over Israel. We will stand with it, therefore playing an even bigger role than we are now.

Dont mean to scare anyone, but something like that would obviously bring about the draft. Im only 17, so of course, i dont like that...

It won't really be a "war" but the world will be plunged into global terrorism and random violance in every country...

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.....

Knight of Orient wrote:Either question is good, i say it will be over Israel.

Yeah, probably would.

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.

Heimdall wrote:

Knight of Orient wrote:Either question is good, i say it will be over Israel.

Yeah, probably would.

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.

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.

Muslims become enraged.

This has already happened... But ok, I get it, more will be so, although I hope you understand Israel's attack won't be agression towards Muslims, but Iranian extremists, though I doubt many Arabs will see it that way. Just remember, many Arabs actually fear Iran too (Iranians are NOT Arabs)

Phase 3: US Economy takes a nose-dive, so the US sends troops to protect oil assets in the middle-east

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.

But all in all, I agree, world war 3 will be the West vs. terrorists, with Israel playing a central war.

Little off topic, but has anyone here watched the new season of 24?

Heres whatll happen
Phase 1: US drawn into Middle East confilict (oops)
Phase 2: Chinese puppet North Korea wont back down, so America and China get pissy about it
Phase 3: Growing Islamic demographic in Europe leads to Pro-islamic revolutions /takeovers
Phase 4: India, threatened by China, declares War
Phase 5: America, England, and Israel fight all out war with Islamic controlled Europe and Arabia
Phase 6: America gets pissed off that China isnt doing anything in N.K., joins India, effectively joining both Wars

Side 1: America, England, Israel, India, American/British small country allies (South America, Japan, Canada, Austrailia, etc)
Side 2: Arabic Empire (Iran, Arabia, Europe), China, Random Asian Countries (N.K., Vietnam, etc.)
Influential Nuetral: Russia. Once agaim they will be the country that comes in and tips the scales

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.....

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.

strike wolf wrote:

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.....

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.

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 it

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.

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?

Bush said it himself, America is dependant on oil. This is why. Cut off the supply and it spells trouble.

Heimdall wrote:

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.

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?

Bush said it himself, America is dependant on oil. This is why. Cut off the supply and it spells trouble.

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 Arabs

I'd like to intervene before this becomes just another boring Iraq thread (there's plenty of them post there). Let's get back to the topic at hand. I think that their will be a WWIII in the future but when is uncertain.

strike wolf wrote:I'd like to intervene before this becomes just another boring Iraq thread (there's plenty of them post there). Let's get back to the topic at hand. I think that their will be a WWIII in the future but when is uncertain.

I agree. I give it 5 years ( see my previos posts)

READ

Heimdall wrote:Putting aside the current events in Iraq

I know what you posted. It needed to be reiterated so that it wouldn't just be ignored.

strike wolf wrote:I know what you posted. It needed to be reiterated so that it wouldn't just be ignored.

Sorry was talking to DIRESTRAITS who was ongoing about Iraq

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.

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.

www.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.

And here's Chevron's operation in the Middle-East (note that Iraq IS included) http://www.chevron.com/operations/middle_east/map.asp

This is why the middle East is likely to be one of the cause of WW3. Limited Natural resources and continued growth in Human population. Strangley enough, Global warming might become a cause as well.

Your wrong Heimdall. Well have biodeisal soon enogh, so Oil wont be a worry. Itll start over the China/India/N.K./U.S. tensions and an Islamic takeover of Europe

DIRESTRAITS wrote:Your wrong Heimdall. Well have biodeisal soon enogh, so Oil wont be a worry.

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.

I don't know exactly what you mean bt "Soon" but i'm pretty certain you won't be fueling up your car with biodiesel in the 25 years. "soon" might not be soon enough in this case.

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.

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.

Some stats from Foreign Aid Watch ( http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/index.ph ... le&sid=761 ) suggest that over 50% of Israels water supply comes from Palestinian land whilst the average Israeli has access to 5 or 6 times the water supply of the average Palestinian, though I suspect it to be much greater when you think of all those Israeli fruit and vegetables in our supermarkets and the Israeli farmers cooling off in their swimming pools after a hard day growing them.

This isn't something recent either. It goes back at least as far as the 1967 war where Israel captured the Golan Heights, which by no coincidence is the location of the head of the Jordan river. The Israelis even attacked a US spy ship (the USS Liberty) to pull of this little water coop.

Either way the appropriation of water in the Middle East is far more important, at least to Israel, than the black gold...

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.

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.

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...

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...

Absolutely. I recommend watching this - a v well argued documentary about peak oil and US foreign policy. Scary stuff. Gave me the shakes.

Wow, I may not have shaked, but the shame burns deep watching that video. The quote below is on the home page of the Oil, Smoke and Mirrors website.

Dale Allen Pfeiffer. Author 'Eating Fossil Fuels' wrote:I heartily recommend this documentary. It should be watched by every citizen of the U.S.

I couldn't agree more thoroughly but would not restrict that recommendation to citizens of the US.

Whether you believe the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 or not, the facts of the impending global energy crisis embodied by the concept of peak oil are very real and it is simply naive to think these do not influence the foreign and domestic policy of all governments worldwide.

Meh, I don't care.

I really don't. If WWIII is coming then its coming. Let's not focus on the negative.

Personally, if WWIII is on its way, then let's party now. Let's drop all the petty nonsense and just embrace our fellow man. If we're all going to die, then let's at least die with some degree of happiness.

Heimdall wrote:

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.

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?

Bush said it himself, America is dependant on oil. This is why. Cut off the supply and it spells trouble.

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!

And now, I'm going to start a conspiracy... The USA is dependant on water! This is why we have a navy, to protect our oceans, and a coast guard, protecting our most precious water, the fresh water! Has anyone else seen the big ships patroling the Great Lakes?