I guess I ask, because it seems obvious to me that as population grows the demand for resources only increases. And war is a good way to gain control over these resources. Not to forget that every war has been about resources.
Some people will say, well, how would you feel if China or Russia went to war with you over oil? I would be upset, but that isn't the point. Even though they would never invade us under current circumstances, if the U.S. does become weak, why shouldn't China, let's say, invade Alaska for the oil that's there? Or Guam and other pacific islands for those benefits? Isn't it good for them so long as they don't over expand?
And that's not to say diplomacy and peace can't accomplish anything but it has more to do with the fact that I believe "sharing" resources simply cannot work in the long run. Even if you can get all nations to come to some sort of agreement, eventually the resources begin to run out and each nation will want to protect what it has, while making deals with allies. This idea that we can just all get along with EVERYBODY (and I stress that because it is still important to have friends) doesn't work in reality even if it's what we all want.
Unless, we have the means find and collect a good amount of resources from somewhere in space. And then maybe, for a period of time we could get along. But, as long as there is competition for resources I do not see why war is not a good option. People go on about "deaths" and "humanity". But it is common sense that overpopulation leads to all sorts of problems including the high demand for resources.
What is the realistic "peaceful" solution to this demand, overpopulation itself, and the long term control and distribution of resources? Widespread communism is not realistic because, besides everything thats wrong with it, corporations will do everything to fight it off and will lead to wars itself. Even though we don't like the horrors of war, it is the most effective, historically of dealing with these situations. I am not saying this justifies going on a killing spree and that diplomacy doesn't have it's place. Not to mention war, also has many environmental effects that we should worry about. But, real peace can only truly take place when everybody has everything they want, and that isn't going to happen because there isn't enough of everything.
The main reason I write this, is because I seriously want to know. What is wrong with the U.S. invading Iraq for oil? You can argue we have not seen a clear benefit from it yet, but I would argue that is an argument for poor execution of the war. And I would think our European friends should prefer U.S. control over Chinese or Islamic extremist control of oil. It is easy to be an anti-war person because you can yell out rants on how war is evil, without taking in to account the reality of the situation.
Some people will say, well, how would you feel if China or Russia went to war with you over oil? I would be upset, but that isn't the point. Even though they would never invade us under current circumstances, if the U.S. does become weak, why shouldn't China, let's say, invade Alaska for the oil that's there? Or Guam and other pacific islands for those benefits? Isn't it good for them so long as they don't over expand?
And that's not to say diplomacy and peace can't accomplish anything but it has more to do with the fact that I believe "sharing" resources simply cannot work in the long run. Even if you can get all nations to come to some sort of agreement, eventually the resources begin to run out and each nation will want to protect what it has, while making deals with allies. This idea that we can just all get along with EVERYBODY (and I stress that because it is still important to have friends) doesn't work in reality even if it's what we all want.
Unless, we have the means find and collect a good amount of resources from somewhere in space. And then maybe, for a period of time we could get along. But, as long as there is competition for resources I do not see why war is not a good option. People go on about "deaths" and "humanity". But it is common sense that overpopulation leads to all sorts of problems including the high demand for resources.
What is the realistic "peaceful" solution to this demand, overpopulation itself, and the long term control and distribution of resources? Widespread communism is not realistic because, besides everything thats wrong with it, corporations will do everything to fight it off and will lead to wars itself. Even though we don't like the horrors of war, it is the most effective, historically of dealing with these situations. I am not saying this justifies going on a killing spree and that diplomacy doesn't have it's place. Not to mention war, also has many environmental effects that we should worry about. But, real peace can only truly take place when everybody has everything they want, and that isn't going to happen because there isn't enough of everything.
The main reason I write this, is because I seriously want to know. What is wrong with the U.S. invading Iraq for oil? You can argue we have not seen a clear benefit from it yet, but I would argue that is an argument for poor execution of the war. And I would think our European friends should prefer U.S. control over Chinese or Islamic extremist control of oil. It is easy to be an anti-war person because you can yell out rants on how war is evil, without taking in to account the reality of the situation.
