[gary_malcolm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'O')f course, you could say that the U.S. is already fighting a resource war in Iraq, but that's just hype. The U.S. spent $1 trillion and got zero free oil out of the deal, so that hardly qualifies as a pirate raid. And if it was the oil they were after, why didn't they go after the easy pickings, like U.A.E. or Qatar or Kuwait? It's a lot easier to knock them off than to take over a populous country like Iraq.

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o war is fought for resources.

[markam]

The U.S. is not taking oil right now because we can buy it with dollars. For some reason, other people think that these dollars have some sort of value. In reality, we are giving something that has absolutely no value, and getting something of great value in return. Oil for americans has a great value returned for value invested (VRVI) right now.

When the dollar becomes worthless, and the oil exporting countries actually want something of value (food, raw materials, slaves, etc.), then we will start taking by force. Taking by force has a much, much lower VRVI, so we will stick with monopoly money for as long as possible.

[venky]

Trying to get some doomerisms for your latest blog JD?

Look, while most doomer scenario's are unrealistic, I think potential military confrontations as a result of energy shortages are a far more serious threat then just the decline of oil.

Since WWII, International law and the UN charter has formed the basis for relations between the countries of the world and even though if it is not perfect, it has gone a long way in preventing wars of aggression and safeguarding the sovereignity of smaller countries. Can the US or the British just walk in and annex the middle east? That is just so unrealistic as to sound ridiculous.

However recent events show that the international system is currently under strain. The Iraq war was launched outside the UN, the NPT seems to be collapsing over the Iran issue and there is the distinct possibility of some sort of military action again outside the UN charter. While full scale war between the major powers seems unlikely, as does the invasion of weak oil rich countries like Qatar and the theft of their resources (although political and economic coersion might achieve the same results) there nevertheless remains the possibility of disruption to the flow of oil in the Persian gulf, increased terrorist attacks, overthrow of the western client regimes in the Arab countries and small scale clashes between rival groups or countries over resources ( some of these are already happening)

I enjoy reading your blog sometimes, but I think the problem is in your eagerness to debunk the more fanciful of the doomer theories; you ignore or gloss over very real problems that do exist. This is not the only instance of it.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'J')D,

You haven't answered my question, why is the US in Iraq? Dont' give me the "democracy" angle. If America supported democracy they would support it in Ubekistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', 'T')rying to get some doomerisms for your latest blog JD?

[JohnDenver]

Just as a side note, can anyone name a war for oil that was actually successful? Germany waged war for oil, and didn't get it. Japan waged war for oil and didn't get it. Hussein waged war for oil, and didn't get it. Bush waged war for oil and didn't get it. Has the strategy of fighting for oil ever succeeded, anywhere?

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'J')D,

You haven't answered my question, why is the US in Iraq? Dont' give me the "democracy" angle. If America supported democracy they would support it in Ubekistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'J')ust as a side note, can anyone name a war for oil that was actually successful? Germany waged war for oil, and didn't get it. Japan waged war for oil and didn't get it. Hussein waged war for oil, and didn't get it. Bush waged war for oil and didn't get it. Has the strategy of fighting for oil ever succeeded, anywhere?

[ozkrenske]

Hmmm a war for oil that has actually been won?

Let me think. We had the Brits invade and impose control over most of the oil rich Middle east during and after WW1. That could be considered an Oil war as a side show to the Big one at the time.

Anything else Probably doesn't directly meet your criteria for 'War'. I take it you criteria for war disallows covert action, blockade, Political Disrupton and control and threats. Rather war in your books is actual military takeover and control for extended periods.

The only other example would be the US in Iraq. There was certainly a military takeover, I saw the pictures. There is something resembling control with just a little "political infighting and disruption caused by foreign elements". (Of course if you do more than watch Fox it is easily seen that the cities and heavily urbanised areas are now being left to destroy themselves in increasingly religious, tribal and political fighting. Meanwhile the US secures as much of the country as possible and restarts Oil exports . Of course the locals weren't meant to be this much of a problem but I guess if everyone has a rifle and been given "democratic rights" then this is the obvious ultimate display of freedom without respect for others.

Now I of course don't consider the Iraq crime against humanity (Just wait for eventual cases they will happen.) to be a pure Oil war. Instead it was a little like light, made of of many components. First there's Oil, then there's embarrassment, then political need, then influence over neighbours, disruption of Middle east society to stop unified regional blocks, a little political ideology, a little theology, some more embarrassment, a little deceipt, ill placed fear and dellusion all leading to war.

Japan's reason for starting their Pacific campaign also had many factors, Oil was not the only one but it was a big one.

Now Oil has really only been important for around 100 years before that we had wars for other resources. The most basic and oldest resource fought over is food. Of course if you lose a little local war over food because it is truly needed then you die.

Now not all wars are resource wars, some of the crusades were for truly stupid reasons, many wars are simply for glory and wealth (mind you wealth is a resource in and of itself).

But I do believe the only truly successful oil war is the British invasion occupation control and management of SA, Kuwait, Iraq and Persia. Of course they were opposed and suffered deaths and injuries at about 1/3rd the current rate of the US, with about 1/4 the opposing population but they stuck it out until after WW2. About 30 years. (hmmm 30 years of the US in Iraq would seem a little hard to see, although the current US government couldn't see the control and rebuild phase lasting more than 3 months. Cretins.)


Now the more important question as to why wars fought for oil have generally been lost by the Aggressor, is simple. Either they are massively outclassed (EG, Saddam vs Kuwait was simple and won by Saddam, Saddam vs the entire planet saw him squashed flat.) or they are attacking because they truly need the oil and they are attacking people who already have it. Easy examples of the last are partly Germany's assault on the USSR where the lack of oil for the Germans was a major limiter on operations, the other would be the more obvious Pacific war Of Japan vs almost everyone. Here the US could build and fuel massive naval and air fleets and the Japanese had simply their ready reserve and what they could capture. No brainer results.

The answer is simple, for potential beligerants, you can't wat till you are desperate before attacking someone for a resource they have. It becomes a major gamble and very hard to Win. Of course if you are not desperate yet you could either:
A. ignore the problem and hopes it vanishes,
B. establish alternate supply through trade,
C. stop using the resource (easy for cosmetic resources like Purple Dye),
D. develop your own alternate resources.

All three responses are gambles that may work (A has a obviously low chance of success) and avoid a desperate solution.


Peak, I'm fairly certain that JD actually mentions a number of wars not just actions/campaigns ( I certainly consider WW2, The Gulf war and 2 to all be wars) in the quote you have from him. I certainly believe they were preceded by politics ( mind you that hardly stops something from being a war ), I'm just a little confused about your point.

Resource wars and wars for control of resources have occurred many times, Many are dismissed as wars of 'power' or 'control' but when that happens they generally are because the 'power' or 'control' is over some resource, even if it is as esoteric as trading and transit rights.

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ozkrenske', 'H')mmm a war for oil that has actually been won?

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'J')ust as a side note, can anyone name a war for oil that was actually successful? Germany waged war for oil, and didn't get it. Japan waged war for oil and didn't get it. Hussein waged war for oil, and didn't get it. Bush waged war for oil and didn't get it. Has the strategy of fighting for oil ever succeeded, anywhere?

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', 'T')rying to get some doomerisms for your latest blog JD?

[gary_malcolm]

There's a bit of semantic wrangling here over ther difference between the primary causes of war and the rationales for war.

The Secretary of State can Huff and Puff about mobile bio-wagons until the UN Security Council start snoring in their Cheerios but that in no way changes the underlying causation of the conflict. All I hear is Faulkner's sound and fury signifying exactly nothing.

Why do we have military bases in Kuwait and Qatar? Why did we prop up the Shah? Why do we support Israel? Why do we support the Saudi leadership to the point that Al Qaeda declares jihad on good ol' 'Merka? Why are we in Iraq?

Democracy? Nukes? Human Rights? Peak Camels? Blueberries?

Give me a mutha-friggin' break. Take look out your front window and eyeball that 3500lbs. of debt-loaded, pollution belching penis-extension sitting on your asphalt driveway.

I'm just sayin'.


G$

[seahorse]

JD,



Why did the US invade Iraq?

[seahorse]

JD,

I've noticed you only ask questions. I've also noticed you just like to ask questions, just for the sake of asking questions. But asking questions is not debating. Your debating is "flabby" as you put it, bc you don't do any work. Asking one question after ampther is not debating, its just asking questions. My 9 year old asks questions, but the difference between him and you is he's truly asking a question to try and understand something. Your not doing that. Its apparent you're just being an antagonist.

Do you seriously think that is a debating? Its not, your kidding yourself. Most people are here to learn. If you are too, fine. Take rockdoc for example. He's much more optimistic than most. He's a great debater, and debates with facts. He doesn't question, he listens to an assumption, looks at the facts, and provides either other facts or corrects facts underlying the basic assumption.

So, If you believe in something or want to make a point, state it and the facts supporting it, that might be persuasive. But, being a 9 year old on these forums doing the why, why, why thing, just doesn't do it. Not for me at least, and that's why you are flabby, just in case you were wanting to know why.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'Y')our debating is "flabby" as you put it, bc you don't do any work.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gary_malcolm', 'G')ive me a mutha-friggin' break. Take look out your front window and eyeball that 3500lbs. of debt-loaded, pollution belching penis-extension sitting on your asphalt driveway.