Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    hey emmajcunningham, get back to talking dirty to me on chat.

    Do you think Eeinstien tops Newton? I think it might be one of the rare cases where the innovator of the founding principles outdoes the founder himself.

    *reading cottonmouth post*




    Listen to my beautiful logic. For a start, you flatter the planners of the war by attributing them such foresight. Secondly, money makes erratic people stable, as does weapons. Thirdly, the puppet government would be quick to join OPEC, the oligopoly which is the blame for high oil prices in the first place. Also, its not a case of just 'securing'. When you demolish a country's infastructure, it takes decades to get back on track, so oil exports arent going to recover for decades, plus the initial revenues will be centred on helping Iraqis given the US will want to save face more than it wants oil, given it can already have the latter but doesnt have the former.
    Such foresight? That Saddam was a bit of a loose cannon and the world didnt have a never-ending supply of oil, and that the majority of it was in the middle-East/ Please, if that is me flattering the amount of foresight they had, God help the Earth for its rulers are retarded.

    Did money make Saddam stable? Did money make Mugabe stable? Does money really turn unstabe people in stable characters?

    As for your last sentence, i believe you are missing out the fact that the warmongers didn't actually know how far they would have to go. They didn't plan the war properly, and this is accepted even by plenty of neocons. They saw the oppurtunity, and jumped, taking a risk which turned out to be a bad hand. Mark my words- it wont be long beofre oil conditions are becoming more and more favourable to us. Its already happening- though i'll have to go and find some links. And i cannot be assed right now. Its late. And the Iraq war isn't the most influentiial person in history.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    oil prices will eventually become more favourable to us, thats just logical given the country will get back on its feet, but that doesnt prove we went in, spent trillions wrecking the place now in order to get oil in 20 years time. Especially given in 20 years time i bet we'll mainly be nuclear.

    Do you really think a government that doesnt believe in 'climate change' and maintains a massive budget and current account deficit thinks that far ahead? How is bush going to benefit when hes out of office? I agree they jumped, but it wasnt due to oil, there are plenty of other, better, reasons as to why they jumped.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    oil prices will eventually become more favourable to us, thats just logical given the country will get back on its feet, but that doesnt prove we went in, spent trillions wrecking the place now in order to get oil in 20 years time. Especially given in 20 years time i bet we'll mainly be nuclear.

    Do you really think a government that doesnt believe in 'climate change' and maintains a massive budget and current account deficit thinks that far ahead? How is bush going to benefit when hes out of office? I agree they jumped, but it wasnt due to oil, there are plenty of other, better, reasons as to why they jumped.
    Wasn't just Bush, it was a whole establishment, consisting of powerful men from both sides of the political spectrum. I believe oil was a factor in the decisions to invade. Not the only factor, though. But please, what are these "better reasons". As long as you don't tell me its because they cared about the plight of the Iraqis under a brutal dictator, i won't lose my head.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    one slightly less rediculous one is Bush family vendetta. I also think the general feeling that the US just wanted someone to invade to get back for the attacks. Personally, I genuinely believe Blair, and while i dont know as much about the American build up to the war, Bush, thought there was WMD's and honestly thought they were a threat to peace, i didnt think there was anyhting malicious about it. The brutal dicatator being replaced by democracy is almost laughable, especially since it started getting banded around by people AFTER things started going pershaped and there were no weapons. Still, we cant leave now, but i dont want to go realllly off topic. I'm telling you, oil wasnt a factor. Going in in that manner for oil is one of the most economically crazy methods of achieveing a raw material. Dont you think it would be cheaper and both monetary and Americanhuman life terms , and safer, to build a few Nuclear Reactors with the cash instead of invading for oil? If they had such foresight for thinking about oil in 20 years, which i doubt, then they would have undoubtably had the foresight to think that simply building a nuclear reactor at home would be far more sensible.

    John Locke was very influencial, especially if you look at his indirect ideological influence on creating the current Superpower.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    one slightly less rediculous one is Bush family vendetta. I also think the general feeling that the US just wanted someone to invade to get back for the attacks. Personally, I genuinely believe Blair, and while i dont know as much about the American build up to the war, Bush, thought there was WMD's and honestly thought they were a threat to peace, i didnt think there was anyhting malicious about it. The brutal dicatator being replaced by democracy is almost laughable, especially since it started getting banded around by people AFTER things started going pershaped and there were no weapons. Still, we cant leave now, but i dont want to go realllly off topic. I'm telling you, oil wasnt a factor. Going in in that manner for oil is one of the most economically crazy methods of achieveing a raw material. Dont you think it would be cheaper and both monetary and Americanhuman life terms , and safer, to build a few Nuclear Reactors with the cash instead of invading for oil? If they had such foresight for thinking about oil in 20 years, which i doubt, then they would have undoubtably had the foresight to think that simply building a nuclear reactor at home would be far more sensible.

    John Locke was very influencial, especially if you look at his indirect ideological influence on creating the current Superpower.
    Well, it wasn't JUST about oil, as you said yourself. You said there were much "better" reasons for the war, and you have yet to tell me what they were. Oil, retaliation, a ridding of a dictator(perhaps), and things that the public don't know about...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    one slightly less rediculous one is Bush family vendetta. I also think the general feeling that the US just wanted someone to invade to get back for the attacks. Personally, I genuinely believe Blair, and while i dont know as much about the American build up to the war, Bush, thought there was WMD's and honestly thought they were a threat to peace, i didnt think there was anyhting malicious about it. The brutal dicatator being replaced by democracy is almost laughable, especially since it started getting banded around by people AFTER things started going pershaped and there were no weapons. Still, we cant leave now, but i dont want to go realllly off topic. I'm telling you, oil wasnt a factor. Going in in that manner for oil is one of the most economically crazy methods of achieveing a raw material. Dont you think it would be cheaper and both monetary and Americanhuman life terms , and safer, to build a few Nuclear Reactors with the cash instead of invading for oil? If they had such foresight for thinking about oil in 20 years, which i doubt, then they would have undoubtably had the foresight to think that simply building a nuclear reactor at home would be far more sensible.

    John Locke was very influencial, especially if you look at his indirect ideological influence on creating the current Superpower.
    Well at least you accept that the implementation of democracy thing is a joke. As you rightly point out, it was invented after the invasion, as was the idea that the war in Iraq is part of some global fight against 'Al Qaeda', which the press still insist on pretending is still a centralised organisation. I mean there are really people who believe that Osama bin Laden is sitting in a cave directing attacks all over the world - it is just ridiculous. It is highly unlikely he has had control over any actual Al Qaeda cells for years. I also don't believe that they thought for a moment there was a threat to western interests from 'WMDs'. The only weapons that were questionable were the ones that were sold to Iraq by the USA - but none of them had enough range to threaten Western interests at all, and were probably sold elsewhere years ago. You do realise that MI6 and the CIA will have people inside all major governments and would have known perfectly well that no such capacity existed? Hans Blix said at the time that the UK and US governments were completely over-sensationalising the whole thing as justification for an invasion, and the 45 minute dossier was the nail in the coffin of any pretence of genuine concern.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Ive just given you reasons. I didnt say they were stand alone good reasons, they are just better than the oil one out of the pre-existing stock of reasons.

    Why are you all getting so conspiratorial? I really dont think we invaded for some really underhand reason, governments, even an undergraduate with a degree in media, know that once your troops start dying in today's wars you need bloody good reasons to keep them there. Hence, manufacuring some sort of reason just doesnt cut it logically. If you look at the ideology of neo-conservatism, and the climate of the time of 'tyranny vs freedom' then you can argue that Bush may, to some extent, have been motivated by ridding what he saw as evil people, and saddam would be a good place to start given hes the archytypal evil dude of the current age. I bet you if Iraq had gone well they would have tried Iran for much the same 'evil' reasons, as well as others. I really dont think Tony Blair is the type of guy who is that underhand, i think he and Bush genuinely believed the intelligence, some of the current presidentail nominees who had access to a lot of it (like John Edwards) believed it at the time too, but they just turned out to be wrong. For some reason, there is an unwritten rule for people in power that prevent them from admiting theyre wrong, so they cant say they messed up, whereas John Edwards can say he can coz hes not president (though admitting such a mistake in power is a bad thing to do morale wise really. Even if everyone knows its a mistake, it still doesnt have the same affect untill the people in power say it is). That's all i think it was about really, people just got it wrong.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I'm not sure we can say scientists, because did they really influence the world? Changing the world isn't the same as influencing it. We aren't all running around desperate to become scientists. Plus, the science was already there, and was merely discovered- can people really create principles that are already there?
    Can you elaborate on the difference between a change and an influence?

    Didn't Copernicus influence? Or Darwin?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    oil prices will eventually become more favourable to us, thats just logical given the country will get back on its feet, but that doesnt prove we went in, spent trillions wrecking the place now in order to get oil in 20 years time. Especially given in 20 years time i bet we'll mainly be nuclear.

    Do you really think a government that doesnt believe in 'climate change' and maintains a massive budget and current account deficit thinks that far ahead? How is bush going to benefit when hes out of office? I agree they jumped, but it wasnt due to oil, there are plenty of other, better, reasons as to why they jumped.
    Yes ,trillions is being spent wrecking the place, that is only because the war is languishing on. I don't think the Bush administration expected the war to have lasted this long (especially given the military might of the US Army in comparison to theirs)

    Iraq is turning into another Vietnam with money being pumped in; in order to maintain stability.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    i'd put in a bid for rupert murdoch, and the beatles.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yes ,trillions is being spent wrecking the place, that is only because the war is languishing on. I don't think the Bush administration expected the war to have lasted this long (especially given the military might of the US Army in comparison to theirs)
    Either way, even a 'quick' war costs massive sums of money, especially so if hte key to making it quick is by flooding the area with your military - having it so intense and co-ordinated, even for a short period of time, would costs loads. And long or not, Bush commited himself to building democracy in Iraq, so either way it was still going to cost alot keeping hte place immediately stable after the initial phase of clearing out Saddams folk was done. Look at Afganistan, we arguably 'won' that quickly, but we're going to be there for the next 20 years in one capacity or another, and it costs a lot.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I would consider Jesus to be the most influential person without a doubt. If not Jesus, then Michael Jackson.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry if this has already come up but i didn't have time to read through all the pages. I don't wanna spark a religious debate here, and as an atheist i admittedly don't know a lot about religions so i apologise if i offend anyone here, but is this list assuming that people like Jesus did in fact exist (as surely they would have to, due to the nature of the title)? and if it does, does it not contradct the existince of some others in the list?

    Again, sorry if it's a bit of an ignorant question to ask, it is just a question, nothing to do with my personal view on it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    but his percieved existance has still had a massive impact, and thats all that really matters. People, in real terms, often dont have that much of an inpact, its what they're percieved to stand for or the values that are assosiated with them that make the difference. Therefore, it doesnt even matter if he existed or not, he still owns.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, in the case that he didn't exist, would you not count the people who wrote the Bible as the most influential people in history? For example, isn't it a bit like saying Harry Potter is an extremely influential person in the world today? It just doesn't sound right to me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You’ve got a point, but nevertheless we still know Jesus as a personality, even if he’s a made up one. We don’t actually hear much of Matthew, Mark Luke and john, if my next to non-existent Bible knowledge serves me correctly. Same goes for Rowling, you don’t know as much about her as Potter, and its probably Potter who symbolises a number of things (such as being able to a be a gimp but still get rich) rather than Rowling herself which have made the impact on people, even if those aspects of the symbolism have come from Rowling’s brain.

    You can argue Achilles was manufactured by Homer originally, but its more Achilles you draw lessons from than Homer when looking at Achilles. Possibly becasue Achilles is a concentrated aspect of what part of Homer's imagination has conjured. He is heroicism. Wheresa Homer also paints other characters, such as Hector, who is merciful or whatever. Homer has the big picture and all the tools, but its the particular characters he draws and the select number of things they represent that we take the most from.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Where Bill Gates?? He made the idea of a "pc" a reality through Microsoft and windows. And Computers have changed the way we live a lot. (maybe he doesn't deserve to be on that list yet, but give it a couple of decades, Al gore will be there too for inventing the internet)

    I'd be tempted to add trotsky for the russian revolution, but probably not top ten.

    I'd add hitler, for starting world war 2, which dramatic changed European relations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    Either way, even a 'quick' war costs massive sums of money, especially so if hte key to making it quick is by flooding the area with your military - having it so intense and co-ordinated, even for a short period of time, would costs loads. And long or not, Bush commited himself to building democracy in Iraq, so either way it was still going to cost alot keeping hte place immediately stable after the initial phase of clearing out Saddams folk was done. Look at Afganistan, we arguably 'won' that quickly, but we're going to be there for the next 20 years in one capacity or another, and it costs a lot.
    Yeah indeed I agree, it won't be cheap either way.

    But the problem with Iraq unlike Afghanistan, is that there is no stability at all. I don't even think they can begin to build a viable economical infastructure (in regards to the oil reserves) without the insurgants sabotaging it. (let alone set up anything else economical viable)

    The intirim government is a joke; more troops are being sent it to fight the insurgants; more money is probably being put into defence (to replace lost, destroyed and aging equipment as well as the troops)...The place is a complete mess.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billyboymccoy)
    Where Bill Gates?? He made the idea of a "pc" a reality through Microsoft and windows. And Computers have changed the way we live a lot. (maybe he doesn't deserve to be on that list yet, but give it a couple of decades, Al gore will be there too for inventing the internet)

    I'd be tempted to add trotsky for the russian revolution, but probably not top ten.

    I'd add hitler, for starting world war 2, which dramatic changed European relations.
    i was tinking bill gates. he is definately one of the most influential people of the 20th century.

    Also, one guy who is not well known to the masses, but may well be considered one of the most influential people of the 20/21 century is Ed Witten - widely considered the most brilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein, if not ever.
    Offline

    13
    In my view Iraq was mostly about oil supplies and the control thereof, but it was also about the neo-con belief that America could change the world (especially the middle-east) towards its interests by direct action.

    It's simply a fact that most of the control of oil in Iraq has been handed out to US companies (in fact it looks like pretty much all the non-military administration of the country is in the hands of American contractors). As others have said, however, the US forces of conservatism just haven't learned the lesson of Vietnam. This nasty conflict is going to drag on and on, and what's worse Blair was stupid enough to throw our hand in with Bush so we get to watch our young soldiers die too, for American political and economic needs.

    I'll never forget how hard they pushed the WMD argument for the justification of the war, and how they assured us they'd find them.

    Also, anyone else notice how oil prices are quoted in US dollars? Maybe I'm missing something - and it's entirely possible because it's not a subject I know much about - but is it true that if you want to buy a million barrels of oil, say, you have to buy them in US dollars, and thus buy US dollars?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.