Blood and Oil

Arowx · Post by **Arowx** » 20 Sep 2010, 15:18

Just found and watched this Micheal T Klare film on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqXOcdYMl60

It gives you the political/power historic view of Oil.

Something the world powers are willing to go to war for, the question is when demand really starts outstripping supply will the economic powers start fighting over the remaining supplies.

Is World War III going to be over diminishing Oil supplies?

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 20 Sep 2010, 16:52

Arowx wrote:Just found and watched this Micheal T Klare film on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqXOcdYMl60

It gives you the political/power historic view of Oil.

Something the world powers are willing to go to war for, the question is when demand really starts outstripping supply will the economic powers start fighting over the remaining supplies.

Is World War III going to be over diminishing Oil supplies?

Sadly, I think it may be inevitable. Any country that tries to do the decent thing and stay out of the fight will simply be left to collapse, without enough oil or food to keep its society going. I guess this is something that Blair had thought through when he agreed to help out in Iraq.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 20 Sep 2010, 16:55

Yes, I agree with Ludwig. I think Blair thought this through and made his choice pretty quickly. A bit of a no-brainer when you think of it in these terms..... of course it is easy to criticise this decision and no doubt much, much harder to take it - but that is what prime ministers have to do.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 Sep 2010, 01:11

snow hope wrote:Yes, I agree with Ludwig. I think Blair thought this through and made his choice pretty quickly. A bit of a no-brainer when you think of it in these terms..... of course it is easy to criticise this decision and no doubt much, much harder to take it - but that is what prime ministers have to do.

Trouble is, he tried to do it, or Gordon ensured it was done, on the cheap. As a result, the only thing we got out of it was the ire of the world Muslim community.

Same will happen in Afghanistan is we're not careful, although that is not to do with oil. It might encourage the Argies to take a pot at the Falklands again knowing us Brits can't afford to fight a proper war any more, especially if a decent amount of oil is found.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 21 Sep 2010, 16:27

Same will happen in Afghanistan is we're not careful, although that is not to do with oil. It might encourage the Argies to take a pot at the Falklands again knowing us Brits can't afford to fight a proper war any more, especially if a decent amount of oil is found

Ever heard of Trident... a well placed threat to send Buenos Aires back to the Stone Ages should send their invasion fleet back home.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 Sep 2010, 17:09

Lord Beria3 wrote:
Same will happen in Afghanistan is we're not careful, although that is not to do with oil. It might encourage the Argies to take a pot at the Falklands again knowing us Brits can't afford to fight a proper war any more, especially if a decent amount of oil is found
Ever heard of Trident... a well placed threat to send Buenos Aires back to the Stone Ages should send their invasion fleet back home.

That would be the PR gaff to end all gaffs. The uproar at home would be worse than that over Iraq and I doubt that the LibDems could be persuaded to stay in the coalition if the Tories threatened that. David Cameron also has more sense.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Sep 2010, 17:13

The USA wouldn't let us nuke Buenos Aires (remember, they didn't offer us any help over the Falklands). And they hold Trident's ignition afaIk: we just pay for it.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 21 Sep 2010, 18:04

I agree with the foreseeable future it is not realistic. However, international affairs could change and the world situation may be radically different in 15 years time.

Regarding the above, its a threat - it may be that the government does not decide to go ahead with the threat, but if a leader appears sufficently mad/bad (think of a future Maggie) than maybe the Argies might not take the risk.

A kind of micro MAD situation.

Regarding the Americans, its a interesting one, how far would they go to stop a allied country to use nukes, would they stop Isreal if Iran launched a attack on Isreal using WMD.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Sep 2010, 18:18

Lord Beria3 wrote: mad/bad (think of a future Maggie)

you have just soiled my entire evening

ArowxGames · Post by **ArowxGames** » 21 Sep 2010, 19:24

What Nuke someone over 2000 barrels a day*, about 3000 people and some sheep!

*http://www.rockhopperexploration.co.uk/ ... AL_RNS.pdf

When Blair and Bush couldn't even get away with saying they were going to war in Iraq for the Oil and Iraq has a very large proportion of the worlds Oil reserves.

Surely it would be easier to barter a diplomatic deal, rather than kick off WW3 with Atomics!

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 21 Sep 2010, 20:03

Its simple, the Falklands people want to remain part of UK, if the Argies tried to invade again, should be to told to get out, or face the consequences.

Sometimes IR is simple.

PowerSwitch

Blood and Oil

Blood and Oil

Re: Blood and Oil