Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Likelihood of War...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedLikelihood of War...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Poll Question: In Your Opinion, Is A War Between Iran and USA/Israel Likely?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
4 [10.81%]
13 [35.14%]
8 [21.62%]
6 [16.22%]
4 [10.81%]
1 [2.70%]
1 [2.70%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2007 at 19:05
Originally posted by Shakespeare Shakespeare wrote:

You already tried that! Didn't you see Canadian Bacon?


Canadian Bacons of Mass Destruction is the best reason I can think of to wage war with you guys! LOL

Hmm, I think we have another good name for a band. Tongue

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2007 at 19:13
America! Censored yeah! We're comin at you to save the mutha Censoredin day!
 
I think that should be our new national anthem.  Tongue
 
I wonder if Tony is watching.  Wink


Edited by The Doctor - October 26 2007 at 19:14
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Leningrad View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 7991
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2007 at 19:18
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

I wonder if Tony is watching.  Wink
 
Always. Stern%20Smile
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2007 at 22:57
Inevitable.....
that simple
Back to Top
ghost_of_morphy View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2007 at 01:49
I voted impossible.  There are a couple reasons for that.  
 
1.   We will soon have new political leadership and it is extremely unlikely it will be someone who is interested in starting another war.
 
2.  Our military is already stretched to the breaking point in fulfilling our overseas comittments.
 
3.  No other country is likely to join in such an effort.
 
4.  Iran will not provoke a war.   It's goal is to present us with a nuclear fait accompli.
Back to Top
Novalis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 15 2007
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 338
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 28 2007 at 21:59
Originally posted by ghost_of_morphy ghost_of_morphy wrote:

I voted impossible.  There are a couple reasons for that.  
 
1.   We will soon have new political leadership and it is extremely unlikely it will be someone who is interested in starting another war.
There is still over 1 year of Bush, if I'm not mistaken the next US presidential elections is scheduled for the 4th of November 2008.
 
Originally posted by ghost_of_morphy ghost_of_morphy wrote:

2.  Our military is already stretched to the breaking point in fulfilling our overseas comittments.
You still have a few thousand active nuclear warheads.
 
Originally posted by ghost_of_morphy ghost_of_morphy wrote:

3.  No other country is likely to join in such an effort.
Israel.
 
Originally posted by ghost_of_morphy ghost_of_morphy wrote:

4.  Iran will not provoke a war.   It's goal is to present us with a nuclear fait accompli.
I agree, Iran won't provoke a war, but a false flag event is likely. Ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Not to mention, as I've said, Israel will probably start  the war.
 
 
Back to Top
Forgotten Son View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2007 at 07:28
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

just try to remember how many more wars the US condusted at the peak of the Vietnam war? - None).


Laos and Cambodia, for similar reasons to those being given for hostility toward Iran.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2007 at 08:00
Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

just try to remember how many more wars the US condusted at the peak of the Vietnam war? - None).


Laos and Cambodia, for similar reasons to those being given for hostility toward Iran.
_popupControl(); Purely in a geographical sense. Neither one was a state enough to withstand VC which was practically in control of the area where the fighting occurred. It was like temporarily expanding the territory of South Vietnam into Cambodia and Laos for tactical purposes
Back to Top
Forgotten Son View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2007 at 11:01
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:


Purely in a geographical sense. Neither one was a state enough to withstand VC which was practically in control of the area where the fighting occurred. It was like temporarily expanding the territory of South Vietnam into Cambodia and Laos for tactical purposes


It was more than that, as massive bombing campaigns were directed at targets far removed from the small boarder areas used by the VC.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2007 at 12:04
Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:


Purely in a geographical sense. Neither one was a state enough to withstand VC which was practically in control of the area where the fighting occurred. It was like temporarily expanding the territory of South Vietnam into Cambodia and Laos for tactical purposes


It was more than that, as massive bombing campaigns were directed at targets far removed from the small boarder areas used by the VC.
_popupControl();
 
Alright. But for the purpose of our discussion it was the same war.
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2007 at 14:35
It will probably happen sooner or later, though at this very moment I wouldn't say it's inevitable or very likely. It isn't yet. I voted Likely.
Back to Top
BroSpence View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 03 2007 at 23:51
I think its obvious there are people that want to go in there, but at the moment there is no way we can afford another war/warfront.  So I think people will push for the war, but its hard to say for certain whether we will or won't.  
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2007 at 17:39
Bush admin.'s credibility = 0%

USA's populace awareness of how manipulated it is = 50%

Population that will never allow to be bullsh*tted like this for awhile = 99.9%

----------------

There can be no other American-started wars with Bush in office. All he says is lies and spin, and we finally realize this, for the most part.


Edited by stonebeard - November 04 2007 at 17:39
Back to Top
aapatsos View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 06 2007 at 09:35
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Bush admin.'s credibility = 0%

USA's populace awareness of how manipulated it is = 50%

Population that will never allow to be bullsh*tted like this for awhile = 99.9%

----------------

There can be no other American-started wars with Bush in office. All he says is lies and spin, and we finally realize this, for the most part.


I hope this percentage will keep rising...Wink
Back to Top
Okocha View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 13 2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 681
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 16 2007 at 18:37
Almost inevitable
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2007 at 08:42
I said it was inevitable, and I think the recently revealed intelligence reports that Iran stopped its WMD program four years ago, will merely serve to bolster the resolve of the Bush government. They have always wanted to attack Iran, and now more than ebver before Bush will be under pressure to pull something out of the bag before he leaves office. People under pressure do stupid things, and doing stupid things is what this man does the best.

As a footnote I would also say that the collapse of capitilism is on the cards too. Our system relies on sustained constant growth in a world where resources are finite. This is a major factor in determining where the next war will go. Basically, when the pantry is bare, we will all start fighting over the crumbs..

Good luck.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2007 at 09:27
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:


As a footnote I would also say that the collapse of capitilism is on the cards too. Our system relies on sustained constant growth in a world where resources are finite. This is a major factor in determining where the next war will go. Basically, when the pantry is bare, we will all start fighting over the crumbs..

Good luck.
_popupControl();

What makes you think so? How finite are the resources you’re referring to?

 
 
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

I said it was inevitable, and I think the recently revealed intelligence reports that Iran stopped its WMD program four years ago, will merely serve to bolster the resolve of the Bush government. They have always wanted to attack Iran, and now more than ebver before Bush will be under pressure to pull something out of the bag before he leaves office. People under pressure do stupid things, and doing stupid things is what this man does the best. .
_popupControl();

Modern wars are prohibitively expensive. With finite resources we have, another war in the near future is impossible.


 
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2007 at 14:44
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

As a footnote I would also say that the collapse of capitilism is on the cards too. Our system relies on sustained constant growth in a world where resources are finite. This is a major factor in determining where the next war will go. Basically, when the pantry is bare, we will all start fighting over the crumbs.. Good luck.

_popupControl();

<P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>What makes you think so? How finite are the resources you’re referring to?


 

 
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

I said it was inevitable, and I think the recently revealed intelligence reports that Iran stopped its WMD program four years ago, will merely serve to bolster the resolve of the Bush government. They have always wanted to attack Iran, and now more than ebver before Bush will be under pressure to pull something out of the bag before he leaves office. People under pressure do stupid things, and doing stupid things is what this man does the best. .

_popupControl();

<P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Modern wars are prohibitively expensive. With finite resources we have, another war in the near future is impossible.


 


Finite resources include not just gas, oil and coal. Climate change could make water and food scarce for long periods of time in certain parts of the world. We will see huge population exodous; fleeing famine, and regional conflicts ignited by regional scrambles for resource and land. It's also not just a matter of dwindling resources, but who is controlling them. A resurgent Russia controls the gas supply to much of Europe. I cant see this situation remaining acceptable to the EU in the longer run, and the situation is already set against a backdrop of worsening relations with Moscow, especially on the part of Britain.

It's my belief that within the 20 to fifty years the west will 'swap' economies with India and China. This is one of the reasons the US will not sign up to any firm carbon emission cutting targets. They know their Chinese and Indian counterparts - who also refuse - will achieve an economic edge on them very quickly. You may argue that resources will not deplete for centuries yet, but I dont think this takes into account global population growth, and the rate of economic growth, in Asia in the shorter term.

In short we face a choice, in the west. Retain control of resources or lose them to India, China and Russia. I think I know what our leaders will choose to do. It's just a matter of time. Around 25% of the worlds oil is supplied by Iran. China alone gets 13% of its supply from Iran. The US will inevitably seek to control this supply, as they have done with Iraqs. Iran have recently confirmed that they will trade their oil in Euros as from next year, as opposed to USD. This is a big blow for the US, and possibly increases their urgency to topple the Iranian leadership.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2007 at 11:20

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:


Finite resources include not just gas, oil and coal. Climate change could make water and food scarce for long periods of time in certain parts of the world. We will see huge population exodous; fleeing famine, and regional conflicts ignited by regional scrambles for resource and land. It's also not just a matter of dwindling resources, but who is controlling them. A resurgent Russia controls the gas supply to much of Europe. I cant see this situation remaining acceptable to the EU in the longer run, and the situation is already set against a backdrop of worsening relations with Moscow, especially on the part of Britain.
_popupControl(); And I consider myself a pessimist!

A sudden change of climate may devastate crops as it happened in the 18th century. (If you allude to the global warming scare, the jury is still out. Besides, some measures are being taken to fight it, so it wouldn’t count as something sudden.) Here you echo Malthus in a way. His predictions haven’t materialized yet because he didn’t take into account technological progress in general and in agriculture in particular. He simply could not imagine the level it would be at today. I think you too underestimate it.

Western Europe depends on Russian energy supplies for the past 40 years at least. And the relations couldn’t be worse at the peak of the cold war during the 70’s and early 80’s, yet the gas and oil kept flowing freely from the east. The beauty of the situation is that Russia depends on Europe too. Natural resources is the only thing they can trade in to survive. The Russian “resurgence” is tied to the price of oil, and within the next 6-7 years, as the overall prices will creep up to mach that of oil, the current Russian resurgence will be over. As far as I know they don’t take advantage of the situation, and instead of reinvesting in their economy, they squander their petro-dollars.


Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:


It's my belief that within the 20 to fifty years the west will 'swap' economies with India and China. This is one of the reasons the US will not sign up to any firm carbon emission cutting targets. They know their Chinese and Indian counterparts - who also refuse - will achieve an economic edge on them very quickly. You may argue that resources will not deplete for centuries yet, but I dont think this takes into account global population growth, and the rate of economic growth, in Asia in the shorter term.
_popupControl();

20 years is an awful lot of time by today’s measures. I don’t try to see that far ahead. For the past 120-140 years America (with Japan and Europe following closely) is in the lead because we create and use advanced technology which we provide to the rest of the world. If this trend continues (and I hope it will) the “swap” with India and China may not happen. As per the depletion of the resources, it’s hard to predict when we will run out as huge areas of Siberia, Canada, South America have not been developed yet. Besides, you ignore technology again.


Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:


In short we face a choice, in the west. Retain control of resources or lose them to India, China and Russia. I think I know what our leaders will choose to do. It's just a matter of time. Around 25% of the worlds oil is supplied by Iran. China alone gets 13% of its supply from Iran. The US will inevitably seek to control this supply, as they have done with Iraqs. Iran have recently confirmed that they will trade their oil in Euros as from next year, as opposed to USD. This is a big blow for the US, and possibly increases their urgency to topple the Iranian leadership.
_popupControl();

We pump about 25% of oil we use. A big chunk of the remaining 75% comes from Canada and Venezuela. The rest comes from the Saudis, Kuwait, and the Emirates. The US imposed an embargo on trade with Iran in 1979. So far Iran suffers from it more than the US. Iran produces about 10% of world’s oil. Their periodical threats to switch to other currencies are nothing new, and if they really do, it will hurt them even more. Only a madman can bet on the present strength of the Euro to stay forever as European governments have proven time and again to bloat their money supply to cover the expenses of their welfare states. They will most likely match the current fall of the dollar (caused by the war btw) with their own within the next 6-7 years as history shows. As the Iraqi war clearly demonstrates, occupying a foreign country is prohibitively expensive. So considering all of the above, why do you think the US action against Iran is inevitable? Again I’m not talking 20 years from now as the situation may change to warrant such action, but rather in the next 2-3 years. Of course, anything is possible, but it would be suicidal to start another prolonged war right now.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.221 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.