Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WWIII: Great commodities war to end all wars

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
www.marketwatch.com...


By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif.— Yes, WWIII: The Great Commodities War to End All Wars. We’ve heard that before. Remember WWI, known as The War to End All Wars, 37 million casualties. WWII was bigger, 60 million. Will WWIII finally end all wars? Or end the world, civilization, planet?

A global wake-up call will trigger the Pentagon’s prediction in Fortune a decade ago at the launch of the Iraq War: “By 2020 ... an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies is emerging ... warfare defining human life.”

All major nations are quietly preparing for Resource Wars. If there is a race, it’s a downhill race to WWIII: The Great Commodity Wars. The world’s great powers are accelerating war preparations — yes, they are in the early logistical build-up stage, amassing the resources and arms to send troops into battle.

And they’re doing it in a world lost in denial, sinking deeper into a collective conscience that pretends our problems will be solved by the magic of free-market capitalism, unwilling to admit it not only no longer exists, it has morphed into an anarchy controlled by a bizarre conspiracy of Super Rich narcissists. Get it? “The race we are on today is the last of its kind that we are likely to undertake.”

Soon, even the myopic dinosaurs in the oil, coal and fossil-fuels industries, the guys who have been bragging about having 200 or more years of reserves, will be hit with a catastrophic wake-up call, as these risk factors balloon to critical mass and a flash point — fueled by commodity wars, pandemics, global starvation, environmental crises, skyrocketing commodity prices and accelerating population growth.

Faced with an impossible equation — out-of-control global population growth plus rapid depletion of nonrenewable resources equals mega-catastrophes — the big players are all selfishly grabbing and hoarding scarce commodities ... like desperate banana republic dictators as the entire world sinks into pure anarchy, scrambling for a share of what little’s left, until nothing is left for anyone.


Farrell was an investment banker with Morgan Stanley; executive vice president of the Financial News Network; executive vice president of Mercury Entertainment Corp; and associate editor of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. He has a Juris Doctor and a Doctorate in Psychology.
edit on 7-8-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
HAVE A NICE,HAPPY DAY!!!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Right on time?

In 2007 the Ministry of Defence Concepts & Doctrine Center released a report outlining the "future strategic context" likely to face the governments of the world. The report outlines a nightmare future society in which populations are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and genotype and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.



Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future


www.guardian.co.uk...

Interesting times.
edit on 7-8-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
as far as my history lessons go

ww1, the great war, was the war to end all wars



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Commodity wars comes after currency wars. Geralde Celente said it best: "Severe economic contraction, followed by currency wars, trade wars and, ultimately, World War".

That is what happened after 1929, we went into WW2.

Commodity wars is just part of the ploy to sell wars easier. A nation does not want to go to war when there is nothing to fight for. So the US is giving arms to our "allies" in Syria, Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and most of the turmoil struck nations. Now that every side is funded and weaponized, it is time for us to head to a war.

Don't forget the US has trained all those terrorists to fight their enemies. Therefore, all our strategies have gone out the _



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


I don't understand why there are so many negative people. No matter which side you agree with the most, they are all fairly unrealistic. Deniers think everything will always be the same, and "enlighten" people argue that everything will collapse and we will all die.

Why doesn't anybody believe in humans anymore? Why don't we believe that we will be able to turn things against all odds? We brag and talk about our heroes in sports and other activities, and how they overcome fear and disadvantage to conquer victory. Yet, when it comes to ourself's, in a greater point of view (global), we are almost certain to think we will die one way or another. We are always under imminent doom.

Our biggest mistake is our arrogance. People will always have a pending enemy over their heads. Today is nuclear war, WW3, economical collapse, and all the things referred in those two (great pieces, by the way, thanks for sharing) articles, aided with our technological advances.

However, to me at least, it seems that it has always been like that. The way it is transmitted to the population/governments is the one that changes. Centuries ago we talked about monsters, the world being flat and how we could all die from going there. There was a genuine fear of the unknown.

We are once again afraid of the unknown. Only this time, our knowledge allows us not to fear the flat world, or sea demons, or plagues that we don't understand scientifically. It's the fear of what might come to us in the future, and in that matter picking an example like global warming, all sides are to blame. All sides instigate fear.

I wonder why can't we just cut the crap and believe that there is a solution to all this. And I know there is. I don't know which one that will be, I can only guess, but I still believe, and I will always believe in good rather than bad. What are you going to live for otherwise?

I agree that we need to take some hard decisions, and I think the harder one will be to give away many of our current comforts. Maybe for some time we will go back to medieval standards of living, but that doesn't mean we will be at war. Not if we decide together that's a temporary solution for our world problems. There is no point in fighting if we don't have a planet to fight in...

But it's just possible. The universe is full of unknowns and things that we can't even start to comprehend. 5, 10, 15 years pass and our scientific knowledge changes drastically. There was a time, not long ago, where black-holes were considered a physics impossibility. But the twist is, that was made under the assumption our comprehension of physics was right.

It wasn't, and today, one "simple" thing that we dismissed as a myth in astronomy, is today a certainty, to the point we now know there is a massive black hole in the center of our own galaxy, and the way galaxies work, that provably provided the circumstances needed for our own existence in the first place.

People need to make an effort into believing, rather than denying or fighting. But the true step is believing in ourself's and others.

If we believe in science and in what we can achieve, there is the chance we might not give up until we find a solution. And who knows? Free energy could be around the corner, and reasons to fight could seize to exist.
edit on 7-8-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: corrected text



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


“By 2020 ... an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies is emerging ... warfare defining human life.”

I think he's wrong, and this quote demonstrates why.

That was the way of empires. There are no empires now. In the past, the only way to wealth and power was through conquest of neighbouring countries.

The west is in the process of attempting to securitize things like food, water and energy. These are non-traditional security issues, and in my opinion it is controversial to frame them as security issues.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by deessell
 



That was the way of empires. There are no empires now. In the past, the only way to wealth and power was through conquest of neighbouring countries.


Empires still exist. It's just not in the same shape and terms as before, but the word still applies, if not even more.

Given the example of the Roman empire, people often think they were based only in warfare and conquer. They didn't. The Roman Empire often resorted to diplomatic conquering strategies, like territory assimilation. Much of their peak was achieved by this, where the threat of the Roman armies was enough to persuade local kings and rulers to give up the absolute power to Rome, making an oath, keeping only the basic local management to the original people, but still having to answer to some sort of roman ambassador or representative.

I'm more acknowledgeable about the Roman empire, but I think the same thing happened to the Persian Empire. Thinking of it, I think that all major empires resorted to some sort of "outsourcing" without applying direct confrontation or war.

Which, if you think of it, is not very different from things like NATO and U.E. or other economical/warfare alliances or groups.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 


I used to share in your optimism until 2007. I spent a few years gathering a ton of data on various corruptions, organized it in a large folder, and walked around to different places talking about what was going on. I did this on at least 80 or so occasions. What did I find? Next to nobody listened.

I see no good reason to think that our problems will get resolved without the majority of us dying out first. Why? Because it's a clustermuck of deceptions out there...because it's pilled up, and few are willing to look at the whole picture and try to repair what has been damaged.

The problem is multi-tiered. For the masses, most can't adequately comprehend what's going on. For the few in control, they are too invested in the current system to do much change.

What must be done? Quite a bit. Practically every major sphere of influence must be revamped integrally in order to put us on a more sustainable track. Taking apart any one without considering concurrently changing all/most of the rest just won't get the job done.

Our leaders simply aren't going to be able to tackle this all at once as is needed. So what is an alternative? Okay so we revolt, and set up a NWO. We take apart each sphere: economic, political, environmental, social, technological, transport, communications, etc, etc...and have our best minds figure out what must be done...but is this really possible?

I don't think so. Why not? Again, in order to revolt, the majority needs to know their enemy, and have a decent idea of what needs to be changed first off. How divided are we, truly? Who could unite us all? Nobody. The people have been thoroughly brainwashed by MSM that they don't realize what needs to be done. Most who have "woken up" are still not on the level as the high intellects who can integrally see what needs to be done. They are usually still a few steps behind the social engineers game plans. Not only that, they usually have an unhealthy dose of psychosis to fill in the gaps of their lack in knowledge, yet willingness to be "aware".

In my mind, the time to truly change this all before it got out of hand was decades ago. We were warned of many of the issues we are currently facing by more than a few great minds in the past. We didn't listen.

Now, does this mean we're all gonna die? No. Does it mean ww3 is inevitable? No. I do think it means that we're not going to change much until it's incredibly obvious we absolutely must. I think that once that point is reached, it's already too late to keep a lot of things we currently keep for granted in check and flowing around.

There does seem to be positioning towards a world war. I don't know when it may happen, or that it must, but I see it as somewhat probable within the next decade. It seems we've already been in a virtual world war for the last decade or so. Once enough destabilization of various world regions takes place...it may in fact erupt physically.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 





Which, if you think of it, is not very different from things like NATO and U.E. or other economical/warfare alliances or groups.


Thanks for posting that, you gave me something to think about. Any chance you could expand on this?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Haven't wars always been fought over resources and land? I see today as no different only the weapons have changed and many of them are being used against populations to steer their views towards the goals of a ruling elite.
People could potentially overcome the looming wars for resources if we were to act globally and return rule back to the people instead of the banking elites. Unfortunately, they have us divided in as many ways as they can dream up and few realize the programming that has been instilled in them to consider other groups whether racial, religious or economic as inferiors or as "threats".
So the future may very well play out as all-out wars consume the planet. This would certainly seem to be the inevitable end for our current models.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by deessell
 


When the Roman Empire was at it's peak, and when it went past the point where they still need to enter military conflicts for conquer objectives, they had a very peculiar thing about their international policy.

They actually made treaty's with nations. The Romans were smart enough to realize that conflicts were too costly for what was worth it. Their super-power status was already stretched thin all over Europe, and we need to bare in mind the times they lived in. If even today it's a nightmare to move 200,000 troops from point A to point B, then it's even harder when you don't have aircrafts, self-propelled boats and all those logistic aids.

Troop movement could take up to a whole year, just to get into battle. The movement of their troops by itself was utterly destructive, since soldiers have to eat, and poop, and drink and party. A force of 500,000 roman troops going through a country, or even a village, would mean that they would deplete all resources available. First for the original people that would starve to feed the invading army, and then for the romans them-selfs, as there were times where they were forced to stay in one place for months waiting for an attack on them or by them.

They realized that resources were more important than actual land to brag for. One thing is connected to the other, but if you make an effort into conquering, you are actually wasting the resources that were supposed to make you rich and powerful. By having an expensive bill, both in offense and defense (they did had to keep people from revolting).

So, after a very dominating military campaign that made them stretch from their original borders, they decided to stop the offensive politics and start using their fame and fortune in their favor.

Instead of threatening other nations and then invading them with brute (but very well trained) force, they started to "corrupt" them.

Even though Romans were very narcissistic and thought too high of them-selfs, they decided to "offer" some things, of which you can give relevance to:

-Education. The Romans thought that other nations were kind of...dumb and primitive. So they aided them with roman scriptures and literature. They gave them the "freedom" of keeping the native language, but all conquered nations were forced and obligated to be fluent in latin and all citizens should be able to properly speak to roman officers. This is actually one of the reasons why you have so many words in common both in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian and so on.

-Economic aid. They also thought that most nations were a bit behind Rome when it came down to economic power. Mostly due to lack of resources. They solved this by building stone roads across the major european/mediterranean markets (actually, the first "highways" in history are all roman, thus the saying "all paths lead to Rome") which aided mutual economic trade and access to rare resources and spices. Other stuff included building those massive water canals that are now historic places all over Europe. They decided that giving water to big cities was a big statement of their engineering power (and it was). For all that, nations had to pay taxes to the Roman Empire.

-Military alliances. If the country that was conquered did so peacefully(or even if they didn't), then the Roman Empire would forge an alliance with them. Any war effort would require that nation to send their best troops and gear to obey any roman order. To ease the fears of the conquered, Rome would also state that the whole Roman army would come to any assistant if the need would arise. This was actually important, because later on the Visigoths from the North started to wage war, and Rome while still protecting THEIR empire, would send troops to foreign nations to fight off the invaders.

-Civilization standards. This is a mixed point, since I already mentioned that inside the Roman control, everyone had to speak roman latin. But this was more than that. All nations had to use the Roman currency, marked with the emperor face on the side. This wasn't made for the same reasons it is today. The currency was a way of the emperor to spread his authority through the Empire, since this was a time where they didn't have pictures of posters, and most people would only see his face in coins, or at least, the ones lucky enough to have them.

But the civilization standards didn't stop there. We all heard about the entertainment the romans enjoyed most, gladiator battles/races/theaters. Again, you can see all across Europe ruins of how far they went, building coliseums and theaters to keep the masses entertained.

The romans assumed that as long as the people were distracted with the games of gladiators, they wouldn't think about being under an empire, about the several wars happening or other social problems, like the lack of food for all population.

(need another post to finish)
edit on 7-8-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: added taxes (no pun intended)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Haven't wars always been fought over resources and land? I see today as no different only the weapons have changed and many of them are being used against populations to steer their views towards the goals of a ruling elite.
People could potentially overcome the looming wars for resources if we were to act globally and return rule back to the people instead of the banking elites. Unfortunately, they have us divided in as many ways as they can dream up and few realize the programming that has been instilled in them to consider other groups whether racial, religious or economic as inferiors or as "threats".
So the future may very well play out as all-out wars consume the planet. This would certainly seem to be the inevitable end for our current models.


Couldnt have put it better myself

Kudos well said



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Sorry double post
edit on 7-8-2012 by nwomustgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Now, I think that is pretty much clear why I gave the Roman Republic/Empire as an example and connected it to NATO and the EU.

The European Union currently has all aspects of a government. Central bank, parliament, it's own deputies/senators elected to serve in that parliament, a military branch, an economic branch and it has power over all aspects of life in all nations that belong to it.

From education to agriculture and technology, EU standards are above national law. Not by principle, since all nations still retain their own authority and sovereignty, but if any nation actually misses on those standards or objectives, they will get penalized, either by paying something to the ECB or some other political consequence. The most severe "punishment" appears to be on the making with the possible exit of Greece from EU.

Personally, the only difference that doesn't make the EU an empire as the romans had, is the fact that all countries agreed to join. But all got the same aspects of it, even the "rewards" given by the EU central government. For instance, the EU had an aggressive agricultural policy that would give money to any nation that would ask for it, but in order to receive those funds, that nation and it's producers had to produce under EU terms and quota-system.

The quota-system is one of the reasons why southern economies are actually failing, since most of them were strong in agriculture and fishing, and now they have to go against northern economies. The problem with this system is that, even if your product is BETTER in quality, you cannot produce more of it in order to gain more profit and thus lowering the price of it.

It's forcing producers to lose their investments because it's more cost-effective to dump the excess food, than to actually trying to sell it inside the time-period before it goes bad. That's why you see european farmers dumping massive amounts of milk, vegetables and fruit to the floor. It's cheaper to throw it away to waste, than even to give it away, since they had to pay for the gas to deliver the above-quota products.

I'm not saying the EU is an empire, but it does seem some nations are gaining a lot more from this than others. Germany being the best case of it. They are going strong, while simultaneously, others are going down.

As for NATO, it's a bit more easy to dismiss as "empire" in nature. If we go down that road, we have to assume the U.S. is actually the central nation of an Empire, or an Empire on itself, and NATO being the armed branch of that empire.

But the principles are all there. The so called "article 5" that everyone keeps talking about is exactly the same principle used by the Romans in their conquest. "You come to our side and give us your guns and troops, and if anything bad happens, we all come to assist you".

The most important thing I can say after these two posts, is that an empire is bad in nature because of it's intentions. There is no problem at all with having unity, or having people with a common language that we all understand, or a currency we can all trade with. The problem is when that empire starts to corrupt the people wealth, health and expectancy of life, just to keep it's own existence going further.

Despite my two long posts, I'm not saying the US, NATO or even the EU is an empire. It's merely to answer to your request of an elaboration (which I actually enjoyed doing, I love this stuff), in which you can see that even today, we still use the same type of politics our ancestors used.

Again, we need to learn from our own mistakes, not for the good of a few, but for the best of all.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join