Should we invade all oil rich country's?

This forum is for posting meaningful and serious ideas and questions. Can be about interests, observations or serious matters of the world. If it doesn't fit that category, don't post here! Serious posts only.

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby login257 on Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:08 pm

yes we do, but u seem to have a narrow look on things.

for starters, most of those 7 billion can hardly feed and clothe themselves right now.
most of the global population would not even notice the disappearing of fossil oil because it plays little or no part in their life.
all the items u mention can be replaced by other materials.
bit more expensive yes but thats a problem for accounting.
the materials department of our global scientific community can make synthetic oil out of a large number of materials.
no need to cut down even 1 tree for that, let alone entire forests.

transportation is a whole other matter as its largely fossil fuel based.
but with a major engine switch/adaptation that problem would be solved too.
as for the ships: i don't mean the 18'th century style ships u seem to be referring to...
did u take a look at modern-day engineering idea's for propelling ships with sails?
a present day container-ship can be equipped with a sort of massive kites that are high enough in the air so they always get wind, and a lot of it.
this ship could then sail to anywhere it needed to be and enter the harbors with electric engines powered by solar panels.
only problem remaining: docking at night....

no chance on feeding everybody?
u seem to forget that the high yield of current agriculture is not driven by the used machines.
the machines replace people, not crops ...
and i believe that with the oil-industry gone and the global economic system finally dead and buried as a result, a lot of those 7 billion pairs of hands become available for farming ...

there are people all around the globe working on these problems and finding solutions every day.
the engineering is not the problem.
the resources are not the problem.
the people are not the problem.
the only problem is the global economic system as it exists right now, stagnant as if it has its feet in concrete.
but that will change quickly when the people of earth stand up and say "enough of this, gtfo, enter new system" and the revolutions begins.
or when ww3 breaks out, whatever comes first ^^


User avatar
login257
Regular Member
 
STEAM_0:1:21817607
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: belgium

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby MakeNine on Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:01 pm

login257 wrote:the materials department of our global scientific community can make synthetic oil out of a large number of materials.
no need to cut down even 1 tree for that, let alone entire forests.


Synthetic fuel is not created out of nothing in a laboratory, you need a source of coal, natural gas or biomass. And you'll still be generating green house gases so it's no solution.

The problem is that oil production has already peaked or will peak very soon, while demand is still rising due to overpopulation and economic growth in the 3rd world. So you have a situation where demand is increasing rapidly while supply will stagnate and decrease inexorably, until the price of oil gets so high that economic activity slows and stops and the global market collapses. No more imports from China or sun holidays in Ibiza :D


User avatar
MakeNine
Home Member
 
Player: [IG] MKNine
STEAM_0:0:5987970
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Ireland



Image

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby login257 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:19 pm

i don't believe an economic decline will be the result, quite to the contrary.
when oil ( = 1 source) rises in price and becomes a problem as far as delivery is concerned, the importance of oil will decline and others will rise, stoking up the fire in the economy's engine.
as for the difference with present situation, there will not be one fuel source but a diversity of fuel sources.

1) plants to biomass
2) biomass to ecofuel
3) ecofuel to co2
4) co2 to plants
5) goto 1


User avatar
login257
Regular Member
 
STEAM_0:1:21817607
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: belgium

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby MakeNine on Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:26 pm

login257 wrote:i don't believe an economic decline will be the result, quite to the contrary.
when oil ( = 1 source) rises in price and becomes a problem as far as delivery is concerned, the importance of oil will decline and others will rise, stoking up the fire in the economy's engine.
as for the difference with present situation, there will not be one fuel source but a diversity of fuel sources.

1) plants to biomass
2) biomass to ecofuel
3) ecofuel to co2
4) co2 to plants
5) goto 1


Which plants will you use to get biomass? We're already seing deforestation on a huge scale for wood and agriculture, how could we afford to cut down more to get energy? How can you match the energy potential of 100m barrels of oil/day?

With rising populations, we need ever increasing land surface for culture, and ever more demand for wood by-procucts, and energy of course. I doubt that's sustainable in any way.

And I'm not even talking about the effect on the climate.


User avatar
MakeNine
Home Member
 
Player: [IG] MKNine
STEAM_0:0:5987970
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Ireland



Image

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby login257 on Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:50 pm

i would like to propose hemp as we can use the whole plant, it gives nice yields and the oil is perfect for use in engines.

if u would have read the whole post u would have noticed me talking about a wide range of fuel (or better: energy) sources.
hydrogen will replace most of it.
to solve our problem we would need a solar-panel ring around the globe at the equator, some serious cabling and the moving of all our production facilities there.


User avatar
login257
Regular Member
 
STEAM_0:1:21817607
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: belgium

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby quaduski on Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:14 am

And how can we produce high levels of hydrogen? to replace what is needed - do we send space ships to haverest it from hydrogen rich gas giants or ask passing aliens for a few trillion m3?

How are solars panels made? with this solar panel ring how are you going to get the power to the places it needed - do you know how much energy that would take, which is why its transformed to very high voltage when it leaves the power stations. To keep heat and cable size to a minium, and thats sending it a few hunderd miles, let alone 1000`s of mies! Add to that 70% of the equator is made up of a wet moving substance! so for most the day the world would be without power.

Overall, there are 32,897,000 vehicles registered for use on UK roads including cars, vans, taxis, buses and trucks.
in 2006 - so that would be at guess, about 10 milion acres of land to fuel just the UK, thats without grease, gearbox oil, sump oil, brake oil and steering oil.
Image
User avatar
quaduski
UKCS Life Sponsor
 
Player: meme
STEAM_0:1:5190098
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Den Helder - Holland with love

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby login257 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:28 am

1) pointing to large oceans, vast volumes of h2o...

2) as these are future panels,no idea. u put the places that use the power near the panels. ankered airships.

this u see as a problem.
u do realise i'm talking about colonization v2.0 right? :D


User avatar
login257
Regular Member
 
STEAM_0:1:21817607
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: belgium

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby Bobbobthebob on Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:44 pm

Bollocks, I wrote too much. Anyway, here it is:

Login257, you're referring to a lot of bits of technology that are out there but you seem to be under the illusion that the future is just the same technology with all its good statistics multiplied ten-fold.

For example, the use of kites on tankers are being considered as a fuel-saving option at the moment, and with refinements in design and deployment we may see non-negligible percentage fuel-savings but they're only any good when the wind is in the right direction. Conversion to full-blown sailing would create shipment times that greatly increase the costs of the goods they transport and requires modifications to the hull for stability such as a monstrous dagger board that wouldn't fit in any but the deepest harbours.

Similarly the circum-equatorial solar panel idea ignores the lack of equatorial land mass, the destruction of entire biomes, the political instability of those regions you would expect everyone to be energy dependent on and the fact that the vast majority of the planet doesn't live on or near the equator. Centralised power resources are a recipe for war, disaster and famine.

login257 wrote:1) pointing to large oceans, vast volumes of h2o...

Those are large volumes of H20 with peskily strong covalent bonds with associated bond enthalpies to overcome.

In fact I can put it simpler than that: You're pointing at the waste output of combusting hydrogen and suggesting that we turn it back into the fuel. This is almost equivalent to suggesting we collect car exhaust and magic it back into petrol.


This is high-school level chemistry:

Energy is required to break chemical bonds. This is why explosives typically require heat or an electric charge to go off. They're stable until the extra energy is put in. Experiments have been done to establish the energy required per quantity of molecules with these bonds to break them. This is called the bond enthalpy.

The equation for hydrogen combustion is: 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O

The bond enthalpies are:
  • H-H = 436 kJ/mole
  • O=O = 499 kJ/mole
  • H-O = 463 kJ/mole
A mole is a measure of chemical amount

So that gives us 1371 kJ/mole required to combust the oxygen and hydrogen. Breaking the equivalent formed H-O bonds requires 1852 kJ/mol. This gives a difference of about 481 kJ/mole which is mostly released as the heat and pressure we would use to drive an engine.
Going the other way would require putting in more energy than we would get out of it.

Hydrogen fuel is great because it's not environmentally damaging but it relies upon some other system to provide the energy to produce enough of it. The problem is not one of raw supply but of converting it to something useful.


Finally, just so I don't sound like a massive dick disagreeing with you on everything:
login257 wrote:there are people all around the globe working on these problems and finding solutions every day.
the engineering is not the problem.
the resources are not the problem.
the people are not the problem.
the only problem is the global economic system as it exists right now, stagnant as if it has its feet in concrete.
but that will change quickly when the people of earth stand up and say "enough of this, gtfo, enter new system" and the revolutions begins.
or when ww3 breaks out, whatever comes first ^^

Our economic system is certainly a massive part of the problem. Not because it's stagnant though. It's too innovative (and not in a good way, this is after all the sector that gave us CDOs based on toxic debt).

Try and take a look at commodity trading, it'll make your brain melt it gets so complex*. The over-arching outcome is that essential commodities with inelastic demand have their markets artificially inflated with speculators' money; driving prices through the roof. When food prices spiked like crazy in 2008 everything from population growth to farming subsidies was blamed yet its eventually become quite apparent that the likes of Goldman Sachs were the cause of much of the problem (especially in the wheat market but other commodities, even without futures markets, went up with it). Oil prices are spiking right now and we're blaming it on Libya as if its contribution to global oil production were anything more than a drop in the pan. Speculation is driving prices here too. The net result is global statistics for poverty and malnutrition reaching levels we hadn't seen since for at least 60 years (the FAO were reporting over 1 billion people considered food insecure worldwide in 2009, a sharp increase over a steadily declining figure).

*This is also where I admit to being largely self-taught when it comes to economics so feel free to point it out if I'm being a doofus.
Bobbobthebob aka His Royal Bobness and Grand High Bob of Bobland
User avatar
Bobbobthebob
Experienced Member
 
Player: Bobbobthebob
STEAM_0:0:10020489
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:07 am
Location: Edinburgh



Image

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby login257 on Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:04 am

about the h2o: you are right !
the extra energy is solar.

about the solar ring: right again !
u have large amounts of ocean and not that much landmass.
but that will not be a problem if u mount them on top of the vacuumtube maglev tunnels.

about the boats: exactly !
if u want to pull a mega freighter with it.
but who would use a ship when u have a thousands-of-km/h train? ^^

this is not presented as factual off course, just my personal favorite for a redesign of the planet, as this is what we are going to have to do if we want to not just survive but move forward as a species...
local politics will be irrelevant as this would be a global effort.
not even a union of nations will do as the talks will go on for generations...
thats why i say that this will be for the rebuild after ww3.
as history teaches us, the chance for a change like this to occur (moving or in this case dissolving) peacefully are slim compared to those of a rebuild after a war.

as for goldmann-sachs and the like: in my future scenario, no such thing as money.


User avatar
login257
Regular Member
 
STEAM_0:1:21817607
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: belgium

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby Little_Devil on Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:12 am

I would like to kick these morons out of power now, so lets just make it a general election based on that argument Jim.

Would you vote for a government that as one of its first acts, tells the country it is in dire straights, won't do anything about penalising the banks for their blunders (probably because a few of them are board directors), then spend millions on a military action, that is clearly about oil.

We don't need to rely on as much oil as everyone thinks. Solar Voltaic power does not need the sun to be out to generate power, it just needs some decent light levels. If every house in the UK had solar panels feeding into the grid, it would make an extremely large dent in the energy usage we currently rely on through fossil fuels.

You don't need to be at the equator either to generate large amounts of power. Spain has a solar funnel generator which does just that.
There are many ways of generating power, none of which a conservative Government would invest in, or put money towards, they would rather throw millions into a war. It made me laugh when the Libya rebels said they would favour France, Italy and Qatar when it came to negotiations regarding oil exports. No mention of the UK seeing any return for the millions already spent.
Little_Devil
Exec. Admin (Retired)
 
Player: Aurora
STEAM_0:1:6431437
 
Posts: 18895
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:47 pm

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby quaduski on Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:39 am

At the end of the day it does not matter which country is dealing with Libya for an oil deal - as the world economy would benifit, it`s not just our country.

If banks like Barclays pay their staff these amounts then good on them, they did not take money out of the public purse - I`m not jealous of other people.

This helped to enforce a no fly zone, at the UN`s request because Gaddaffi was bombing civilians - these Libya civilians (and the league of arab nations) asked the UN to enforce a no fly zone, as the UK is part of the UN, they provided air support - this was not an invasion; the OP is a hypothetical question. And do you think any other UK goverment would have done different?

Would you (LD) vote for a goverment that would lie to the UN and it`s own country about secret reports of WMD, then invade a country over false documents and asked the banks to over inflate housing market and lend 100% to 150% for upto 50 year mortages (and over 5 time their yearly wage) to people who could not afford to pay it back, then causing the global economy to collapse - Is the answer to that YES?
Last edited by quaduski on Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
quaduski
UKCS Life Sponsor
 
Player: meme
STEAM_0:1:5190098
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Den Helder - Holland with love

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby login257 on Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:47 am

dont put up too much solar panels unless its c2c and u have a replacement plan.
the conversion rate is still on the low side for commercial panels but there are experimental panels who show some nice improvement.
there will be a point where the conversion rate of the panels on the market warrants the investment in new panels as the increase in return outweighs the cost of replacement.

low budget:
when the old panels get replaced there will be second hand opportunities ...


User avatar
login257
Regular Member
 
STEAM_0:1:21817607
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: belgium

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby Kaelan002 on Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:11 am

/kinda off topic

heres an interesting way of getting electricity (related to not using oil)

Radiowaves, its pretty easy to do, all you need as an long wire. The problem is they generate so little that you would struggle to power a led light this way. However someone (cant remember who) as developing a kind of super reciever that basically looks like a huge sheet of plasticated paper so its really easy to use (its bendy) and transport (you can just fold it and put it in your suitcase). Essentially It works by having millions of half a centimenter long wire loops woven into the fabric, each one acting like a tiny reciever and a square meter sheet of this stuff can in theory (he hasnt finished it yet) generate quite a substantial amount of power.

Now that great but you still have to have someone or something broadcasting radio waves (using power) which costs more to do that you get from the reciever and always will.

So why have i just made you read this, well i have an (completely theoretical :) ) idea
If we somehow launched a giant sheet of the stuff into space (ie cladding a spaceship), would it not be able to recieve power from solar flares and other events like that?

Now i know that isnt going to power the planet but it would be an interesting way to generate power for space flights.
or could in theory nick free energy from your local radio station :P
Last edited by Kaelan002 on Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There are 10 types of people in the world: those that know binary, those that don't, and those that didn't expect this joke to be in base 3.

[video =373,150]http://a.pomf.se/ixefrf.webm[/video] Now shhhh Kaelan... OOOOOOH
pomf.se is ded. :'(
User avatar
Kaelan002
UKCS Sponsor
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Kae
STEAM_0:1:29878923
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: The restaurant at the end of the universe



Image

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby Little_Devil on Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:50 pm

quaduski wrote:At the end of the day it does not matter which country is dealing with Libya for an oil deal - as the world economy would benifit, it`s not just our country.


I see, so Saudi Arabia benefits the world by producing oil, and ofc gives it away. Russia produces gas, and ofc that benefits the world, because they give it away ?

If banks like Barclays pay their staff these amounts then good on them, they did not take money out of the public purse - I`m not jealous of other people.


Not very good speaking of one bank, when others were bailed out by a cross party agreement to do so.

This helped to enforce a no fly zone, at the UN`s request because Gaddaffi was bombing civilians - these Libya civilians (and the league of arab nations) asked the UN to enforce a no fly zone, as the UK is part of the UN, they provided air support - this was not an invasion; the OP is a hypothetical question. And do you think any other UK goverment would have done different?


The UK, US and France had to lobby the Arab nations to get them to agree to a no fly zone. This was an excuse for an invasion, and they are still pressing hard to get rid of Gadaffi regardless. This is early days and if the rebels look like they are faltering, then they will offer military aid, even as they are doing now. They will stretch this UN mandate as far as it will go. Once they done this and found that they are getting nowhere, they will lobby the UN again, if they are not doing so already.

Would you (LD) vote for a goverment that would lie to the UN and it`s own country about secret reports of WMD, then invade a country over false documents and asked the banks to over inflate housing market and lend 100% to 150% for upto 50 year mortages (and over 5 time their yearly wage) to people who could not afford to pay it back, then causing the global economy to collapse - Is the answer to that YES?


If that country had already used WMD's then yes. Don't believe the publicity hype, total load of rubbish. That leader had already used biological weapons on the Kurds, attacked 2 neighbouring countries, not just once either, and threatened to deploy missiles against other countries armed with biological/chemical warheads (a WMD).
Don't get stuck on the media reports classifying WMD's as nuclear, other weapons ie biological are also WMD's.

Banks in the UK were never asked to give long term mortgages at 100% to 150%, over 50 years, that was in the states and entirely the banks own doing. The fact that the banks unwisely invested, meant that they themselves went under, mainly because they could not cover their own debts.
Little_Devil
Exec. Admin (Retired)
 
Player: Aurora
STEAM_0:1:6431437
 
Posts: 18895
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:47 pm

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby quaduski on Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:18 pm

Yes, Saudi Arabia benefits the world by producing oil and their self - thats why it is, among others a very rich country; no one gives their oil away for free, they work within OPEC regs, thats it. (or russian gas come to that)

I understand fully the term WMD and also I understand fully that they were never found, even to this day. They did use chemical warfare O.K., but they never had the abilty to use it or produce it after the Gulf War - with the aid of a No-fly zone and sanctions, as UN inspectors told them several times - without the use of a brick or a plank of wood with a nail in it. Where as Gaddaffi has chemical weapons now, so by this fact an invasion is needed - but has not happened.

Banks are governed by the government, whom request a criteria for them to work under, via the bank of england. Over a 15 year period the banks were give instructions to maintain a high level of wealth in the UK, Northern Rock was the first sign of that failure in economical policies and which did not give the then givemement the sense to intervene - leading to a global collapse. There are four main markets around the world of which the UK is one, a ripple in one effects the others. America is last in the great chain of global markets, and have to keep their house in order more so than most and are in a far better standing than the EU.

I don`t think the EU could tell Arab nations to do anything they don`t want to do by course - they just would not listen to the migthy EU demands.

PS. Socialism has created every dictator in history.
Image
User avatar
quaduski
UKCS Life Sponsor
 
Player: meme
STEAM_0:1:5190098
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Den Helder - Holland with love

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby Little_Devil on Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:19 pm

Banks are governed by the government,


Don't be silly, HSBC trades in this country just like any other business, Santander the same. Even the Bank of England was devolved from the Government years ago, to stop politicians meddling with interest rates.

Governments cannot tell banks what to do without legislation, and the Banks certainly wouldn't allow that. Barclays has already said it may move its head offices to New York if the Government tries imposing its will on Banks in general and this is just making the retail arm separate to the investment banking side.

The banks brought the catastrophe down on themselves, with no help from Government, the only thing the Goverment did was to stop these banks going bust, something we are all paying for now, since the present Government has lumped this in as part of the national debt, yet havn't got the balls to get that money back, despite the banks now making profits.

Anyhow this is off topic, chemical weapons were found and so were labs, also you have to remember that this was a country that attacked its neighbours and destabilised the whole region.
Gadaffi may be a retard, but he has not gone round invading other countries or indeed been a cause of trouble for many years outside of his own country. The amount of oil that Libya produces is hardly a great amount next to the total produced in the world < 1%, and is considered by Opec, a reserve supply.
Little_Devil
Exec. Admin (Retired)
 
Player: Aurora
STEAM_0:1:6431437
 
Posts: 18895
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:47 pm

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby MakeNine on Sun May 01, 2011 2:06 pm

quaduski wrote:I understand fully the term WMD and also I understand fully that they were never found, even to this day. They did use chemical warfare O.K., but they never had the abilty to use it or produce it after the Gulf War - with the aid of a No-fly zone and sanctions, as UN inspectors told them several times - without the use of a brick or a plank of wood with a nail in it. Where as Gaddaffi has chemical weapons now, so by this fact an invasion is needed - but has not happened.


A lot of the WMD's were probably provided by the US in the first place. They even assisted Hussein with his nuclear program. Of course that was at a time when they wanted to use Iraq against Iran (the islamic revolution had overthrown the pro-west tyrant)

PS. Socialism has created every dictator in history.


I didn't know fascists like Hitler and Mussolini were socialists :D


User avatar
MakeNine
Home Member
 
Player: [IG] MKNine
STEAM_0:0:5987970
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Ireland



Image

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby Saurus on Sun May 01, 2011 3:24 pm

MakeNine wrote:I didn't know fascists like Hitler and Mussolini were socialists :D

Do you even know what Nazi stands for?

National SOCIALIST (German) WORKERS Party.

Every single economic and social policy by the Nazis was VERY VERY Left wing. It is unfortunate that our leftwing dominated media try to keep painting hitler as a right-wing conservative, when he was anything but. He nationalised everything, and believed in the State protecting you and the willingness to follow/die for the state. All these are left wing socialist/marxist ideas and concepts.

Do you know what car Hitler drove?

volkswagen - aka: PEOPLE'S CAR .... sounds pretty socialist to me.

Mussolini was allied with Hitler (briefly) more to protect Italy's interests (avoiding war). They barely had any similar policies. Mussolini was a nationalist and believed in a totalitarian big State government (Which is the opposite of rightwing, who people in a small, conservative (yes thats why they are called conservative) government). So you could argue Mussolini was more left wing then rightwing.


TO GET BACK ON TOPIC - this all part of the geo-warfare agenda. You expire your enemy's resources before your own. When the middle-east dries up, the only regions will large oil deposits will be the gulf (near florida), alaska, near canada (north pole), and off the shores of brazil - which are all in america's backyard. Once you control the supply, you control the markets.
Rior|UKCS|
Image
User avatar
Saurus
Home Member
 
Player: rior
STEAM_0:1:14059366
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:11 pm

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby MakeNine on Sun May 01, 2011 3:50 pm

Saurus wrote:Do you even know what Nazi stands for?

National SOCIALIST (German) WORKERS Party.

Every single economical and social policy by the Nazis was VERY VERY Left wing. It is unfortunate that our leftwing dominated media try to keep painting hitler as a right-wing conservative, when he was anything but. He nationalised everything, and believed in the State protecting you and the willingness to follow/die for the state. All these are left wing socialist/marxist ideas and concepts.

Do you know what car Hitler drove?

volkswagen - aka: PEOPLE'S CAR .... sounds pretty socialist to me.

Mussolini was allied with Hitler (briefly) more to protect Italy's interests (avoiding war). They barely had any similar policies. Mussolini was a nationalist and believed in a totalitarian big State government (Which is the opposite of rightwing, who people in a small, conservative (yes thats why they are called conservative) government). So you could argue Mussolini was more left wing then rightwing.


Fascism did take in ideas from both sides of the political spectrum, but still you can't say that it's the same thing as socialism. What about Pinochet? You can't blame every dictatorship on one single ideology.

Just because the word socialist is in the name of the party doesn't mean they are socialists. Did workers in nazi germany have any say about production? You also have to wonder why the Nazi's abolished unions and the right to strike.

[off topic I know]


User avatar
MakeNine
Home Member
 
Player: [IG] MKNine
STEAM_0:0:5987970
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: Ireland



Image

Re: Should we invade all oil rich country's?

Postby login257 on Sun May 01, 2011 9:05 pm

they needed to produce weapons in large quantities and fast.
and supplies for a rather large war effort.
that would be a logical step.
u need to take control of the production facilities and recourses.
and of the population.
so u use propaganda, create an ideology and nationalize everything, putting u in control of production and workforce.
propaganda and ideology also delivers troops.
the right to strike is obvious...

thats just basic warlord tactics 101, not socialism.


User avatar
login257
Regular Member
 
STEAM_0:1:21817607
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: belgium

Previous

Return to Thinkers Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests