Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:58 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:
^^^^

Did the UN stop USA's Vietnam expedition? Could they stop the Gulf War? Also remember that the UN did not sanction the Iraq war, USA just went ahead with it anyway. Nothing fundamentally has changed, we thought Russia was gone but they have found stability again and more importantly control huge oil reserves of their own. It's just that fifty years ago people probably believed, whereas now everybody's disillusioned.



The UN's loudest opponents to the Iraq war were against it because they had millions of dollars in crooked Oil for Food money coming out of there--and all the proof was discovered after the US invaded. Peace-loving pacifists they ain't.
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:04 am 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
saintinhell wrote:
^^^^

Did the UN stop USA's Vietnam expedition? Could they stop the Gulf War? Also remember that the UN did not sanction the Iraq war, USA just went ahead with it anyway. Nothing fundamentally has changed, we thought Russia was gone but they have found stability again and more importantly control huge oil reserves of their own. It's just that fifty years ago people probably believed, whereas now everybody's disillusioned.



The UN's loudest opponents to the Iraq war were against it because they had millions of dollars in crooked Oil for Food money coming out of there--and all the proof was discovered after the US invaded. Peace-loving pacifists they ain't.

The point is, they couldn't stop the war anyway, even with the economic interests. That leads to the conclusion that UN isn't much of a factor in considering the possibilty of an eruption of a war in the future.
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:21 am 
 

666head wrote:
Resident_Hazard wrote:
666head wrote:
Well, I'm damn sure that we've all noticed the rising food prices in the last couple of years, and not because of demand. I'm talking about basic food products, fruits, vegetables, etc. Not only that, but I've seen politicians go on and on about how we should take care of our food, and shit like that. That, and the undeniable fact of global warming, I mean,being hot all year long, and have cold periods in June and July! And many retail stores have put limits on how much of a certain food product costumers can buy.

All of that leads me to believe we are headed for some really rough times in the future, and a possible World War III (lets face it, if World Wars I and II were fought for oil, a valuable resource even today, then what would keep the world from doing the same with an even more important resource, food). Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying humanity is doomed or that WW3 is garanteed, but it just scares the living shit out of me the fact that this is becoming a reality.

What do you guys think?


I don't think this thread will last long since you're wrong on so many points. For one, I've never once heard a single thing about WWI and WWII being fought for oil. And I've probably spent more time glued to the History Channel (Fuhrer Vision) than anyone else on here. Hitler was a conquerer. WWI and WWII were wars of politics, racial superiority, and imperialism.

For another thing, food prices going up are results of two main things: Rising fuel costs and regular old inflation.

It also depends on what "undeniable facts" there are about Global Warming that have you concerned. For one, from what I've recently learned, not only is it not a man-made phenomenon, but it's also a natural process so strong (relating to the very orbit of the Earth) that believing we can control it in any way is pure folly.

A scenario for bringing about WWIII is highly unlikely. The UN are incredible pacifists (especially where their interests are concerned, i.e. having their corruption exposed in the oil for food debacle due to the Iraq invasion) and much like the League of Nations so long ago, are dead-set on not warring as much as possible.


It's entirely possible that we are headed for some really rough times in the coming years (after all December 21, 2012 is fast approaching!), but a war for food? I doubt it.


What do you mean that WWI and WWII weren't fought for oil, my Goddess, its basic history, pretty much every single war that happened during the XX Century was for oil, petroleum has been the basis of the world economy for a long, long while. Read a history book from other places and time periods, and it will all start making sense.

As for the global warming thing, maybe you are right and I am wrong. But it is undeniable that climate has been changing, at least a little. Reading past, handwritten documents, climate seems to be highly erratic. Maybe said documents are wrong, but it just makes you think.

As for the food prices, sorry buddy, but inflation ain't the only reason. Sure, China and the EU are rising, but the US ain't out of the picture just yet.

And dude, seriously, when has the UN been completely pacifist. They do whatever the G8 tell them to do. If the G8 wants war, will get war.

And dude, there have been many wars in the past for food. Land=food.

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong and I'm 100% right. Both of us really make good points, but there are just somethings that seem...odd, when you examine them.



You obviously know very little about either WWI or WWII. WWI was fought by, essentially, European Empires who wanted more land, money, power, control, expansivism. It was the first real mechanized war, so it's not like global oil, coal, or other reserves were in short supply. Politics was the main motivator. Oil has pretty much never been a primary motivator in war. About the only major ordeal you can say had "oil on the brain" was the original Gulf War when Saddam claimed Kuwait as his for little more than to gain it's rich oil fields.

WWII was largely fought on politics as well, and these were often based on strong, often radical, racial ideals. Hitler wanted absolute power for the Aryan race. The Japanese and Soviets, and Americans to an extent, also received indoctrination on "the superiority" of their respective races, heritages, and political systems.

Vietnam and Korea were very much political battlegrounds under the Cold War Capitalism vs. Communism battles. In fact, throughout the latter half of the 20th Century, that was what most conflicts became based upon. If the current Iraq war was fought for oil, food and fuel prices wouldn't be so high in the US. No, the focus there was terrorism in it's myriad of forms.

Even if you travel back through time, food is hardly the motivator for war. Food shortages are typically a motivator for civil unrest and in-born political strife. I can't think of a single full-scale war that was fought for with food as a primary motive. Did ancient American Indians fight for food? I would suspect that was never the case (with the tiny lone exception of Easter Island), since the Americas are abundant with natural resources of every kind. They'd fight for the same basic reasons as other people--essentially, religious or more primitive "political" bases. In fact, up until a few hundred years ago, it seems that most wars were fought for religion and power than anything else. Having more land conquered out of the hands of other people can benefit in a lot more areas than just food.

Or hey, look at ancient Rome. They conquered other lands and made them part of the Roman Empire because, essentially, that's what Rome did. It was for wealth and money as much as for power and glory. Any kind of natural resource, any amount of land. Riches, gold, land, and slaves.


The UN does have a military force and they do have troops in all sorts of places, but the UN as a whole tends to want to do whatever it can to avoid all-out war. Hell, once again, there's Iraq to consider. Saddam violated the hell out of several UN resolutions, violated treaties, and even kicked out UN weapons inspectors. The UN did nothing to punish Saddam or remedy the situation. They were, essentially, making many similar mistakes that the League of Nations did when Hitler started moving troops into Austria and started spreading his power. They looked the other way, even though Hitler was violating many resolutions instilled on Germany after WWI.


When the young US moved west and conquered Indian lands, it wasn't for food. It was for every kind of control over every natural resource you can imagine. Note: I'm not saying that the kind of conquering that was done was really the right thing to do, just that it happened. Hell, our own Civil War wasn't fought for food or oil, but ideals when you boil it right down to it's core. There were a lot of factors leading into it, but the foremost, of course, was the issue of slavery and national unity.

I listed two primary reasons about the cost of food going up: Inflation and rising fuel costs. There are no real major shortages. Maybe right now tomatoes may cost a bit more because a bunch of them are contaminated with salmonella, but in general, there are regular old, fairly mundane, reasons for food prices going up.

Essentially, saying food or oil alone are primary movitators for war either over-simplifies complex situations or misses the point entirely.



Also, dude, I am not your "goddess."
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle


Last edited by Resident_Hazard on Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:22 am 
 

Kruel wrote:
Resident_Hazard wrote:
saintinhell wrote:
^^^^

Did the UN stop USA's Vietnam expedition? Could they stop the Gulf War? Also remember that the UN did not sanction the Iraq war, USA just went ahead with it anyway. Nothing fundamentally has changed, we thought Russia was gone but they have found stability again and more importantly control huge oil reserves of their own. It's just that fifty years ago people probably believed, whereas now everybody's disillusioned.



The UN's loudest opponents to the Iraq war were against it because they had millions of dollars in crooked Oil for Food money coming out of there--and all the proof was discovered after the US invaded. Peace-loving pacifists they ain't.


The point is, they couldn't stop the war anyway, even with the economic interests. That leads to the conclusion that UN isn't much of a factor in considering the possibilty of an eruption of a war in the future.


Roger that.
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
ja_sam_brle
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:02 pm
Posts: 2
Location: Croatia
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:36 am 
 

The war is inevitable and with every drop of oil less this is becoming more clearer. On Discovery Channel was said that the worlds reserves of oil will last for about 80 to 100 years(I'm not very sure about the number but I think i didn't missed for a lot). Big oil companies sure as hell won't approve total transition to another power source until they've milked the last drop. Quantity and quality will go down, the price will go astronomicaly up. Half of the countries won't even be able to get their share, biggest consumers(USA, Russia...) will surely use force even more directly and obviously to get their part and when one of those countries takes grasp of some oil spot someone other was planning to get, everyone will take sides and hello WWIII.
Hmm, I was feeling very michaelmoorish while writing this. Hope this at least gets a laugh.

Top
 Profile  
Kicker_of_Elves
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:49 am
Posts: 30
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:29 pm 
 

a great war is inevitable, that much is certain. despite the blind arguments of food quantity "staying the same" and blaming "inflation" for rising food prices, the truth remains that food production isn't keeping up with human production; and unless we all end up living off "yeast products" like in Isaac Asimov's vision of the future, a whole lot of people are going to die. but what really confuses me is the amount of people in this thread who seem to think that's a *negative* thing- seriously, what the fuck planet are you living on?

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:01 pm 
 

Kicker_of_Elves wrote:
a great war is inevitable, that much is certain. despite the blind arguments of food quantity "staying the same" and blaming "inflation" for rising food prices, the truth remains that food production isn't keeping up with human production; and unless we all end up living off "yeast products" like in Isaac Asimov's vision of the future, a whole lot of people are going to die. but what really confuses me is the amount of people in this thread who seem to think that's a *negative* thing- seriously, what the fuck planet are you living on?


You'll forgive me if I don't delight in seeing people hacking each other apart on a blood stained field as a form of natural population control. I have this weird notion in my head that there are far better ways to get our economics and our resource distribution in a well ordered state than carpet bombing cities and blowing up infrastructure, most of which provides the food that you eat.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
Kicker_of_Elves
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:49 am
Posts: 30
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:06 pm 
 

hells_unicorn, what forms of population control *do* you delight in? famine, disease, eugenics/genocide, settling Mars or the Moon? i'm not making any judgement on whether war is a "good" thing or an "evil" thing, but the truth of the matter is that Earth can't support that much more people unless it's completely paved over or something equally dreadful. I do see war as more preferable to disease or famine because at least those people who survive do so based on some innate skills they have (you would hope).

Top
 Profile  
SatanIsMyStewardess
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 33
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:21 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
Kicker_of_Elves wrote:
a great war is inevitable, that much is certain. despite the blind arguments of food quantity "staying the same" and blaming "inflation" for rising food prices, the truth remains that food production isn't keeping up with human production; and unless we all end up living off "yeast products" like in Isaac Asimov's vision of the future, a whole lot of people are going to die. but what really confuses me is the amount of people in this thread who seem to think that's a *negative* thing- seriously, what the fuck planet are you living on?


You'll forgive me if I don't delight in seeing people hacking each other apart on a blood stained field as a form of natural population control. I have this weird notion in my head that there are far better ways to get our economics and our resource distribution in a well ordered state than carpet bombing cities and blowing up infrastructure, most of which provides the food that you eat.


If the problem is too many people, any solution that doesn't substantially reduce population is bound to fail. I agree that war is a wasteful, inefficient and highly unselective method of thinning the herd, so perhaps we should approach the problem a bit less haphazardly. Gas chambers seem to work quite well.

Top
 Profile  
Noobbot
Mors_Gloria + Thesaurus

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 426
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:29 pm 
 

Kicker_of_Elves wrote:
hells_unicorn, what forms of population control *do* you delight in? famine, disease, eugenics/genocide, settling Mars or the Moon? i'm not making any judgement on whether war is a "good" thing or an "evil" thing, but the truth of the matter is that Earth can't support that much more people unless it's completely paved over or something equally dreadful. I do see war as more preferable to disease or famine because at least those people who survive do so based on some innate skills they have (you would hope).


It's not the earth that supports the people - it's humanity's means to maintain a stable population and healthy environment. If humanity cannot manage to safely sustain seven billion people, I suppose it should not, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone willing to submit to genocide. You'll gladly put others up to suffer genocide, but what if the knife is aimed at your jugular? Surely you'll beg and plea them not to kill you. But according to you, it's the right thing.

I'm not against violence, but I am pointing out the hypocrisy many people seem to favor when it comes around to nullifying over population. Engineering crops that produce a higher yield with less acrage, building structures taller rather than wider, and many other things can be done to accomodate a rising global population.

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:34 pm 
 

Kicker_of_Elves wrote:
hells_unicorn, what forms of population control *do* you delight in? famine, disease, eugenics/genocide, settling Mars or the Moon? i'm not making any judgement on whether war is a "good" thing or an "evil" thing, but the truth of the matter is that Earth can't support that much more people unless it's completely paved over or something equally dreadful. I do see war as more preferable to disease or famine because at least those people who survive do so based on some innate skills they have (you would hope).


I don't support any form of population control, it goes against my philosophical beliefs in individual rights, particularly that of life. Any support of such policies visited on others would likely be re-visited on me, and I don't like that prospect too much.

Famine and Disease are usually a product of nature, and since nature tends to like the concept of primitivism, suffering, and short-life according to modern proponents of the Noble Savage, I'd be more inclined to wage war on nature than try to help it out by utilizing starvation/germ tactics against others.

If I condoned Eugenics/Genocide, someone would be well in their rights to take my life to cure any population woes, for such arbitrary/authoritarian nonsense is best put out of its misery before it can germinate. Some might even suggest that it would be poetic justice if Genocidal policies were enacted upon proponents of forced sterilization/extermination of alleged lesser people by authoritarian rulers.

Colonizing outer space might be an option in a few centuries when we figure out how to scrape up the funds and research to pull it off, but in the meantime I'd promote re-introducing agrarian methods into various economies. The amount of food and agricultural resources wasted by large farming industries could be offset with a redistribution of farming duties. Increasing horse and cow manure production would aid in keeping fields fertile, and perhaps with a modified diet human fecal matter could potentially work as a fertilizer, probably if we limited our meat consumption to the recommended daily allowance and increased our intake of grains and vegetables.

Personally, I'd like to see the absurd practice of millions of people jamming themselves together into metropolitan areas end. I'm tired of a bunch of consumerist couch potatoes who've never lived in a house with a tree on their property dictating how my state and my country conduct their political affairs, not to mention these people consume food and don't produce it.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
SatanIsMyStewardess
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 33
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:39 pm 
 

I hate to break it to you, but uh, 'nature' is always going to win that war.

Top
 Profile  
SludgeMetalHead983
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:28 pm
Posts: 122
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:00 pm 
 

It scares the hell out of me too...I'm 17 years old right now if there is one I'll be lucky to get away.

in other news

HELLO CANADA!

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:05 am 
 

SatanIsMyStewardess wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but uh, 'nature' is always going to win that war.

Humans are also a part of nature. They might defeat that "nature" in quotes.
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaymanOnFire, Kahalachan, MrMcThrasher II, PhilosophicalFrog, StainedClass95 and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group