RE: War for Oil? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

rulemylife -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 6:57:06 PM)

The viable alternative is peace achieved by not attacking other countries.

I mean really, this has gotten to be almost unbelievable that I am sitting here listening to people defend the taking of whatever the strongest nation can get.

Are we back in the Middle Ages?  I would have hoped civilization had progressed beyond that point.

And again, the analogy to your neighbor taking your possessions, or the reverse, still applies.  Our societies are not modeled on the strongest getting to take what they want.  I'm sure if your neighbor was a thief you would be the first on the phone to the police.

Yet, you want to argue the same concept doesn't apply to nations.  



Starbuck09 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 7:03:28 PM)

  But he same concept does apply to nations whether we like it or not rule my life. There is a finite amount of resources on the earth who controls those resources is decided by war. Do you think it should be decided by trade which makes slaves of nations that are not gifted by mineral wealth? You say you hope civilization has progresed betyond the stronf=gest nation taking what it can get but I am yet to see any nation throughout history behaving otherwise with the possible exception of Tibet which was crushed by ~China.



philosophy -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 7:45:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Out of interest philosophy what nation or empire do you believe has risen above self interest to embrace cooperation. I cannot name one thay hav all behave exactly the same from Ghenmghis Khan to Roosevelt and beyond.


........then you're mmerely proving the old adage that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

As for an example, you live in it.

The UK used to behave in exactly the way you suggest. Gunboat diplomacy, the works. Then, at one point, it became clear that it was an untenable tactic. It's all very well using your military to obtain resources, but after a while it becomes clear that there are costs involved. You're likely to become embroiuled in costly wars against native populations for instance......and the further way from your own country you are the more expensive, difficult and open to attack your supply lines are.
So, the UK moved back from Empire building. Instead of sending the Royal Navy around to collect resources, we strted to send diplomats in to negotiate for them. This turned out to be cheaper in the long run...and actually guaranteed access to more resources than simply shooting the natives did.

So there ya go.......if i were you i'd wait until i were sober before replying with something less than perfectly thought through.



Starbuck09 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/4/2009 7:51:47 PM)

 But we still use our military to secure resources which is the genesis of this thread philosophy. Costly wars against native populations? What does that remind youy of?



blacksword404 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/5/2009 1:42:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

Go ahead Mr. police outlaw killing someone for their things. Better yet outlaw countries vying for supremacy. Let me know how that works out for you.

The first can be done somewhat and the second of yours has never been done.


Yet again you fail to give a straight answer to a straight question. You stated earlier that mankind had always taken and used what he needed.

So, once more, are you saying its okay to kill someone for their oil, but not to enslave them to work your farm ?


When you ask a straight question you will get one. You are asking a slanted one.



Politesub53 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/5/2009 2:32:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

Go ahead Mr. police outlaw killing someone for their things. Better yet outlaw countries vying for supremacy. Let me know how that works out for you.

The first can be done somewhat and the second of yours has never been done.


Yet again you fail to give a straight answer to a straight question. You stated earlier that mankind had always taken and used what he needed.

So, once more, are you saying its okay to kill someone for their oil, but not to enslave them to work your farm ?


When you ask a straight question you will get one. You are asking a slanted one.


No I`m not and suggesting that I am is another way that you avoid answering the question.

Quite clearly I`m stating it isnt possible to cherry pick right from wrong, either we go to war for any resource we wish, including slaves, or we dont. My answer has always been we dont.



philosophy -> RE: War for Oil? (7/5/2009 10:26:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

But we still use our military to secure resources which is the genesis of this thread philosophy. Costly wars against native populations? What does that remind youy of?


...if you're referring to the recent war in Iraq then i consider that an aberation. Quite contrary to the trend of the last fifty or so years.
The UK used to wage such wars all the time. Now we don't....and i seriously doubt any British PM will get away with dragging us into another such war.
Still, nice way to duck most of my recent post.



Starbuck09 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/5/2009 10:54:25 AM)

I didn't duck it philosophy I answered it, neatly as well. The only reason we have not been attacking countries for what we need recently [relatively] is that we have not had to. In most cases we are able to use trade and proxy wars as in Africa to ensure we get what we need/want. If you think that for fifty years we have not been using war to get what we want then you are sadly mistaken. It might not be us directly waging it but we have provided funding and training to any number of regimes and dictators to ensure our supplies are undiminished. I have answere every post you have directed at me philosophy both politely and in full when quite often [not on this thread] you have directed a question at me and ignored my reply so please do not be flippant when you address me, extend me the same couteousy that I show you.ee



philosophy -> RE: War for Oil? (7/5/2009 10:56:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

If you think that for fifty years we have not been using war to get what we want then you are sadly mistaken. It might not be us directly waging it but we have provided funding and training to any number of regimes and dictators to ensure our supplies are undiminished.


....examples please. Please note that i was talking specifically about the UK.



Starbuck09 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/5/2009 11:00:11 AM)

I was also speaking about the u.k. I will compile a list for you of all the regimes we have supported if you wil bear with me. Though personally I think that you are fully aware of our behaviour and are  being deliberately obstructive becuse it flaws your argument philosophy. Do you really know nothing of our involvement in Africa?
Edited for spelling don't know wht happened there.



Starbuck09 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/5/2009 11:07:46 AM)

I'm off for tea now philosophy so will have to get back to you with a full list, in the meantime checkout our funding of Robert Mugabe in the early 2000's our training and backing of various groups in the Angolan civil war. Our relationship with idi amin e.t.c. e.t.c.the list is enormous but I suspect you are already fully aware of that.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: War for Oil? (7/6/2009 11:29:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


No I`m not and suggesting that I am is another way that you avoid answering the question.

Quite clearly I`m stating it isnt possible to cherry pick right from wrong, either we go to war for any resource we wish, including slaves, or we dont. My answer has always been we dont.


Of course its slanted. Its slanted because you have defined a slave as a "resource" which forces the answer you want. And if I recall correctly you are part of the "moral equivalency" crowd, while there are societies that still treat certain members as property.



Politesub53 -> RE: War for Oil? (7/7/2009 1:50:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


No I`m not and suggesting that I am is another way that you avoid answering the question.

Quite clearly I`m stating it isnt possible to cherry pick right from wrong, either we go to war for any resource we wish, including slaves, or we dont. My answer has always been we dont.


Of course its slanted. Its slanted because you have defined a slave as a "resource" which forces the answer you want. And if I recall correctly you are part of the "moral equivalency" crowd, while there are societies that still treat certain members as property.


So how about an answer. Do you consider killing someone for what they own okay, but forcing them to work for you not. Its only slanted to you, so you can avoid a proper reply.

"Moral equivalency crowd " If you mean by that everyone should be treated equal, I`m happy to say its my ideal.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625