Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
The next World War
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
Will the next World War be fought over the so called dwindling supplies of oil? Or the fact that the price of wheat/rice etc is climbing as more and more people try and put a meal on their families table. The Second Gulf War was (If we understand the facts) fought to control the oil. The U S is once again beating the War Drums over Iran, another oil state. The price of oil reached $135-00 a barrel today, so what next. Oh, and what about all those inventions allowing cars to run on a non oil product. In the 60s and 70s, almost every month somebody came up with one. Only (If the romours are believed) to be bought up by the oil companies.
-
Message 2
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
GF -
seems to me that IF the US investors of the Oil Companies were to sell their holdings in the Mid East and start buying more oli from Canada - it might make a difference - as it is we have a very large US Investemnt bank telling us that the oil will hit $200:oo a barrel before the summer is over - sounds like a self fullfilling prophecy to me - and they are rubbing their hands with glee plus the Saudi's increasing the output by a derisory 300,000 units a day when the Chinese and Indians are using more and more - so all in all I see a really big war on the horizon - but then I also thought that Chelsea might squeak that game last night in Moscow ! -
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
Not sure if it will be all-out war (don't know if that's really possible anymore without being very short and very emphatically one where the victor might really be the loser) but I imagine the next bout of aggression that involves nearly every country will have water behind it (though not much after it).
-
Message 4
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
I tend to think a World War on anything like the scale of the previous two would be economic suicide to all parties concerned.
-
Message 5
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
"...I tend to think a World War on anything like the scale of the previous two would be economic suicide to all parties concerned..."
It was economic suicide the first two times.
If, however the 'prize' for the political classes is maintaining our current oil based lifestyles for a few more decades, then I doubt that the thought of economic suicide will stop them.
Unless a truly viable alternative is found to oil I suspect that it might be the trigger for war.
Water may cause localised wars at some point, but i doubt that these will become world wide. Europe will not be importing water from Asia any time soon, for instance. -
Message 6
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Water may cause localised wars at some point, but i doubt that these will become world wide. Europe will not be importing water from Asia any time soon, for instance.Μύ
Agree with this completely. There are tensions already in some parts of the world with regards to access to water. Turkey has dammed a few rivers in the south east of the country which has restricted river flows into Iraq and Syria which has caused some diplomatic "discussions" over the years. -
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Not helped by an increasing world population chasing dwindling supplies of wheat rice and petrol. But in some cases you wonder if it is put up job. The oil companies have been stopped from entering the Alaska National Parks. Where they say there is enough oil to solve the U S problem for years. Like wise in Montana where there is oil shale, but the locals don't want the land raped. The seas round the Falklands are supposed to be oil rich. But who would they belong to? The Falklanders? The Company that owns the islands? Or the British Government who has invested a lot of money, and in 1982, blood down there. Or would the Argies be prepared to go to war again over the oil? More so when you think our armed forces are nowhere near the strength they were in 82.
-
Message 8
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Grumpy,
There are lots of ways of delaying the end of oil, but none, as yet of avoiding the end.
Unless we have a credible alternative, we are stuffed. Once the sorts of resources you mentioned are tapped in to, some one will be fighting for them, because they will be the last of it.
I do not think that it is about to happen, but 100 years hence, who knows ? -
Message 9
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
It was economic suicide the first two times.Μύ
I suspect, because of globalization, the scale of the economic disaster would be far huger these days. Where in the developed world could you bomb now that isn't full of major Western business interests? -
Message 10
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
IMHO will it not be a WW III over oil,some lokal wars maybe but not a global one.
As oil gets more and more expensive and the talk about global warming gets higher,will other alternatives get more economical.
The Scandinavian countries have the last 10 years reduced their oilconsumption with over 30%.
The big problem today is the cars,but with better motors using hybrid technique can the consumption for every car be reduced this is made with existing means.
Naturaly if we get three times as many cars will the oilprice still go up.
I do remember from my school and university days in the 60ths.
How they said that oilsuply wont last another thirty years,and the overpopulation will start wars and have as all on their knees before 2000.
Those days are long past,we still have oil and although we well and truly have more people on earth than they said would be possible for survival,are we still going on and are on an average not worse (quite the opposite) of than we was then.
Human ingenuity will again prewail but as always doesnt we change a system before we have to or see such advantages in it so we change willingly.
Hasse -
Message 11
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
±·΄Η°ω»ε³Ύ²Ή²Τ²Τβ¦
If what you say turns out to be the critical factor for the next war - the supply or lack of water- then we here in British Columbia could be the very centre of hostilities inasmuch as with less than five million population we have at least a total of 60 rivers keeping us ahead of the game with 5 of those being major conduits of our melting snow capped mountains constantly threatening us with flooding each June as is the case at the moment . Our personal nearest is the Mighty Fraser River discovered and traced from the high Rockies by Simon Fraser who was the forerunner of the Lovat Clan of Scotland whose Lovat Scouts exploits in WW2 were well known to all with his Lordshipβs leadership of a Commando group on D Day with his relief of Major Howardβs glider party at the famous bridge.
Other major rivers i.e. Mac Kenzie and Thompson were also discovered and traced by fellow Scots around the same era whereas the even greater Columbia now supports 132 Hydro electric dams which produces much of the power used by B.C. β Washington and Oregon states before exiting into the Pacific at Astoria in Oregon..
During a conversation with a foreign visitor some time ago he mentioned that to take over B.C. would be a simple matter for a party of 200 well trained marinesβ¦.I pointed out to him that he might be well advised to ensure that his troops had a supply of 200 body bags with them β¦.but a million Chinese/ Russians might be a different ball gameβ¦β¦ -
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
The Norwegians are excreting the proverbial baked clay masonry bits as well. The country produces more water than the rest of Northern Europe and Scandinavia (and the world, according to some less restrained national newspapers) combined, and this of course makes it a terrorist target in years to come. I've read at least two editorials to this effect, though as yet public panic has failed to kick in (despite the tabloids' best efforts - which included a photo montage of Bin Ladin holding a water can and pointing his finger glaringly at Holmenkollen ski jump).
Rumour has it here that Australia is planning an invasion too, given their recent problems. We've already banned kangaroo meat from our dog food in case it's regarded as a sacred animal by the shonky strine-speaking stickybeaks! -
Message 13
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Another flashpoint that hasn't been brought up yet could be the Formosa Straits. If China feels confident enough, it could cross over to Taiwan for its own brand of re-unification. Doubt the US would be happy about that.
-
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
I doubt if they would get involved in a shooting war though. By the time they reacted, the Chinese would have taken the place. That means the U S (Alone) mounting a sea invasion, 1000s of miles away from its nearest base. Japan would (I would put money on it) refuse to let the U S stage out of any of their islands. So how do they do it? Yes, I know the British did it in 82, and the U S are better equiped than we were. But China is no push over. Again, it would depend on who sat in the White House. We all remember Ford and Carter. A regan or Bush, maybe. But it would be a costly war in terms of money and men.
-
Message 15
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Pimp. The U S is already over committed in the Middle East with feet on the ground. Short of conscripting again, where would it find the troops to take on China. It would have to be a conventonal war. To go Nuk. would lead to both China loosing cities, but also the U S could loose most of the west coast.
-
Message 17
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 18
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
You understood Grumpy's post, Matt?
-
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
Pimp. I have the greatest respect for the U S. The world owes them a lot. Since 1945, they have held the right of the line while others countries have let them. But!!! Like the U K the U S no longer has the industry it had in 1945. Like the U K, companies have seen bigger profits if they transfered their production to China. Yes, given time, the U s could gear up for war, but that would be paid for in the blood of its brave fighting troops. The U S armed forces are under strength (Like the U Ks) and are depending more and more on it)s National Guard. (As with the U K and its T A) The result being a reduction in people joining. Like us, soldiers are leaving the armed forces. Here, the quick way out is to be found under the influence of drugs, or to have drugs in your system. So, the war itself. The U S would never commit its fleet to the straights of Formosa. The words sitting ducks spring to mind. And even if they stood off, a few months back, the Chinese navy managed to place a submarine almost against a U S carrier, during an exercise. In war time, that would have cost them their most important ship. That would mean standing off and attacking with either shore based bombers. (Does the U S have that many these days, and would they be able to fight their way past the Chinese Airforce. Or use cruise missiles. So, you are the Chinese. You see flights of cruise missiles approaching.Are you going to wait till they explode to decide they are conventonal warheads, or assume they are nuks. Meanwhile, (Taking advantage of the fact the U S is now fully committed to fighting China) the North Koreans cross the border in force. Now what? Factions in The Middle east see your withdrawal of troops to fight the Chinese as a wonderful time to take back the lands they see as theirs. Now what? You will be able to count on one hand the countries that will offer help. The U K of course. But who else? So, after all this, you have managed to get boots on the ground. The Middle East proves that it is almost impossible to control the country with soldiers, and China has 10 Chinese for every American.
Nothing like a good debate first thing in the morning.
Grumpy -
Message 20
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 21
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 22
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
Pimps -
and here I was thinking that my bizarre comments on the probablity of water being a criteria for war in response to Nordmann's suggestion - but now I see that these message boards have been hi jacked by insulting- erstwhile elitists and smart asses types like yourself and Nordmann - I shall refrain from further comments.
Cheers -
Message 23
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
Trooper Tom,
You keep on posting! Your contributions have been interesting and informative.
VF -
Message 24
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
Matt, so we agree on something. Must lay down in a darkened room. LOL
Trooper Tom. Keep your imput coming. I find a lot of it most useful.
Grumpy -
Message 25
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
Matt. If you ever get a chance. There is a work of fiction called Invasion by Eric L Harry. Well worth a read.
Grumpy -
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
... these message boards have been hi jacked by insulting- erstwhile elitists and smart asses types like yourself and Nordmann ...
Μύ
Huh? -
Message 27
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
"Rumour has it here that Australia is planning an invasion too, given their recent problems. We've already banned kangaroo meat from our dog food in case it's regarded as a sacred animal by the shonky strine-speaking stickybeaks!"
HUH ? - you don't find that comment insulting - then you must be worse that I had thought ! -
Message 28
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 29
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 30
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
HUH ? - you don't find that comment insulting - then you must be worse that I had thought !
Μύ
No, I found it as I wrote it - a satirical stab at the inflated Norwegian sense of self-importance and superiority. If you don't understand or care for that style of humour that's fine by me. But kindly refrain from resorting to common insult, especially when criticising an imagined case of insult issued by someone else. It shows a profound lack of logic, doesn't do you or your intelligence any credit at all and comes across as simple petulance.
I'll beg your forgiveness however, if only in deference to your obviously greatly advanced age and unsurpassed (on these boards anyway) military achievements, impressive not least for their frequency and geographical comprehensiveness. Many a veteran has made a tidy sum from memoirs encapsulating but a fraction of your own exploits and I, for one, would be a willing contributor to your own funds should you ever put pen to paper, Trooper Tom Canning. -
Message 31
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
Australia has a tropical north with a wet season and water+++, only 1% is used for agriculture and most runs out to the oceans. The problem is settlement was in the drier south of the continent and that is where most agriculture is pursued, including, growing rice(!) Some crops (grapes) and pastoral activities (sheep) do better in a drier landscape
So I think the Norwegians are safe from invasion, even from mobs of kangaroos. Not sure they're safe from bunyips though
-
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 25th May 2008
They're not taking any chances here all the same wollemi. The internment camps are already filling around Gardermoen and Vippetangen with Australians caught coming through customs carrying empty water bottles hidden in their luggage. A fair amount have also been arrested around Oslo trying to smuggle water out in the form of copious amounts of beer hidden in their alimentary canals.
But you're right - so far they've nearly all been crow eaters! -
Message 33
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 25th May 2008
In Scotland, they are selling their water to the world. But they get round it by calling it Whisky.
Grumpy -
Message 34
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 25th May 2008
GF , and those docs. They say that drinking beer piles on the weight .
That's nonsense. My neighbour drank ten pints a day for forty years and only weighted five stones when he died of liver cancer recently.
These so-called experts don't know what they're talking about. -
Message 35
Posted by docsdiamonds (U1803003) on Sunday, 25th May 2008
Hi all,
d'you know I'm suprised no-one has mentioned Religion/Culture* as the possible flashpoint that pulls us all into another war.
Israel Vs Iran/Syria
India Vs Pakistan
Conflicts between these parties pulling in China, USA,Russia etc.
*Not suggesting this is a more likely flashpoint than natural resources but it seems a more likely present danger doesn't it?
PS Trooper Tom - it would be a great shame if a contributor of your knowledge and experience were to leave these boards. There's a certain degree of "leg-pulling" and the rough and tumble of lively debate than can be misinterpreted on an imperfect medium such as a message board. I'd be suprised if it was enough to put an old soldier like yourself off. Keep posting Sir and I shall keep learning from you.
Just my 2 bob. -
Message 36
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 25th May 2008
Bringing a little bit of history into this, most past conflicts have been based around religion and more precisely about power.
Nations, more correctly national leaders and eliteβs within nations, desire power and wealth and the most straightforward way of getting that is through military conquest.
A war over resources is still only a war for power, those who control the resources control the power.
Religion is a strong catalyst for energising the people and persuading them that their cause is just.
But ultimately wars are about conquest and survival, the religion and political systems involved are just symptoms of the illness.
The present war in Iraq is about controlling oil, but the main driving force behind the invasion was the two religious zealots that controlled the main forces doing the invasion. Bush and Blair were embarking on a religious crusade reinforced by their Christian beliefs that their ideals are superior and the world would be a better place if their ideals were spread.
Put religion and money together and human nature will probably lead to conflict, it is after all what we do very well.
But as a lesson from history I would point out that there will be trouble in the Balkans in the spring. -
Message 37
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Sunday, 25th May 2008
Docdiamonds β I shall accede to your request to continue as the wit of OUNUPA had me recognizing that many of the contributors are reasonable people and put life in the proper context as it is way too short to argue about itβ¦.having said that β as an old soldier β¦I cannot let the remarks of Nordmann go unchallenged
Nordmann; -
β you found it as you wrote it β a satirical stab at the inflated Norwegian sense of self βimportance and superiorityβ
I feel I must offer you my most unreserved apologies for mis-understanding your comment of which I jumped to the conclusion that inasmuch as you began the comment by referencing Australia and Kangaroos plus strine speaking people β that you were still referring to the Australian people as I was not aware that the Norwegian people also speak βstrineβ. So you were not deliberately insulting the Australian people but rather your ownβ¦ so thatβs alright then !
Your forgiveness is however accepted with regards to my advanced age of 84 years, but I must wholeheartedly resist your comment of β my unsurpassed (on these boards anyway) military achievements,β as you do me too great an honour as I was only a humble Trooper wireless operator in a Churchill Battle Tank. At the same time I offer my thanks for your acknowledgement of my frequency and geographical comprehensiveness in many matters military, it would appear that I did learn something in the intervening years.
I would agree that many a veteran has made a βtidy sumβ from their memoirs of their own exploits albeit in most cases far greater than my small role in subjugating the horrors of Nazism, my puny efforts nevertheless contributed to your ability to wax satirical in the language of your choice. If indeed, you are serious about a contribution for my exploits then by all means make a donation to the Chinese Earthquake fund as many of my tales β less those of βderring doβ with the exception of one,- have been published by the BBc war series .
These can be found here : -
Pimpernel -
Your comments noted regarding my anti Americanism which invariably centres around their Leaders actions in WW2 and by no means the long suffering GIβs - as I find most Americans to be great companions on a weekly basis when we meet for breakfast after Church most Sundays at Aldergrove near the border of Washington State and British Columbia - most delightful and concerned neighbours. -
Message 38
Posted by honestrebel08 (U12080514) on Monday, 26th May 2008
Dear GrumpyFred,
It is strange that we seem to accept the concept that the two previous globalised wars are considered to be "world Wars" in the first place. It is not the whole world going to war with each other. The colonial and imperialist masters, in their attempt to control the world resources unleashed the so called world wars. At present times wars breaking out on a global scale will be impossible for even the most powerful country in the world, both militarily and economically.
There are more countries capable of destroying the whole world with their nukes. Even now, rebel militias and insurgents are giving a bloody nose to the most powerful armies. Besides, the big powers have other means like economic sanctions, embargoes etc to keep the "rough" states to submit to their dictates. World war three in the offing? I don`t think any one will be stupid enough to start one! -
Message 39
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 40
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Monday, 26th May 2008
Hold on to what you got , Trooper Tom.
You're a real man.
Jack. -
Message 41
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
Here's an interesting quote from Francis Fukuyama:
Today's international system scarcely resembles the 19th-century world of clashing European great powers, so enmeshed are its actors in the global economy. It is not nuclear weapons, but the trillion-and-a-half US dollars held in Chinese reserves that creates a system of mutually assured destruction between America and China.Μύ
A trillion and a half US dollars held in Chinese reserves? Like I say, it would be economic suicide for the US to launch a war against a power like China. -
Message 42
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 30th May 2008
Mike_Alexander,
A trillion and a half US dollars held in Chinese reserves? Like I say, it would be economic suicide for the US to launch a war against a power like China.Μύ
And the likewise. They're both locked in a 21st-Century equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction. -
Message 43
Posted by Docbrinsley (U6638310) on Friday, 30th May 2008
Dear Englishvote, I would be be interested on your views re a future Balkan conflict as you suggested "in the spring". Whats you theories about a future conflict in this area?
-
Message 44
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 30th May 2008
here I was thinking that my bizarre comments on the probablity of water being a criteria for war in response to Nordmann's suggestion Μύ
There was an interesting article in the Economist 3-4 weeks ago about wars for water. Despite the hype, countries seem able to form international agreements about water use even where two countries are deadly rivals in other spheres. Water-use treaties have survived real wars between e.g. India and Pakistan and also in the middle east. Not to say that it's impossible, but governments where this is an issue tend to work the issue out. Perhaps the boring technical issues (how much water you get for X and how much someone gets for Y) just don't stir the populace into a war-fever (for want of a better word) in the way that invading Belgium does. -
Message 45
Posted by starrysky (U5987149) on Sunday, 1st June 2008
In an ideal world, there wouldn't BE another world war. However, we don't live in that world.
I don't know a lot about all of this (as I'm only 12) but it may well be. Or it could be something totally different - religion, maybe something against countries like Zimbabwe. (It is Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe is, isn't it??)
<3Starrysky<3
<3Fantastical..<3
Author2Be
-
Message 46
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 47
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Sunday, 1st June 2008
Latigo444 -
You are obviously not too familiar with tanks...so - yes the wireless/Radio is a part of the tank although at the same time detachable - but too heavy to carry around !...maintenance was carried out by the wireless operator for the small faults and the larger faults were dealt with a Signals expert who was attached to the REME Light Aid Detachment(LAD) of each squadron of 19 Tanks. The Canadian built #19 set was a very robust piece of equipment and I never had any trouble with valves or any other large fault.
Each #19 set was a send and receive unit and had three main channels - "A" the main one back to the Regimental(57 Tanks) and Squadron "net"(19Tanks) - then the "B" connected the three Troop Tanks - then there was the Inner communication (I/c) unit which kept the five crew members in touch with each other - then in Italy we had a normal telephone welded to the back of the Tank to allow the Infantry to talk to us directly and point out various targets which we sometimes could not see ! Before this innovation the Infantry had to climb aboard and try and get our attention by hammering on the hatches - this was not recommended as snipers were always active.
The #19 set was situated on a Churchill Tank at the rear of the turret and was placed at a point about three inches away from the furthest point of the recoil of the gun with a canvas bag to hold the ejected used rounds - which had to be emptied after about 20 rounds were fired - and you did not get your arm in there when the gunner was firing - it was bad enough when you had to open the hatches to throw the "empties " out - sometimes they would jam the turret and the guess who had to get out and fix it - right - the Wireless Op !
Otherwise it was always fun !
Cheers -
Message 48
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Monday, 2nd June 2008
Andrew -
I cannot understand why Latigo's
question has been moderated as it seemed to me to be a fairly innocuous question regarding the Radio in Tanks - to which my posting # 47 refers ? -
Message 49
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 2nd June 2008
I can only agree with you TTC. Perhaps the mods have deduced through an IP address someone on their records as being less interested in history than they are fascinated by your recall.
For my part I can only say "long may you continue here on these boards"! The number of people left with such a detailed knowledge from experience of radiophonics in tank warfare who can yet take the time to explain it on the internet must be infinitismal at this stage. We are privileged to get such info first hand!
What were the mods thinking of? -
Message 50
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008
Tom, I must agree. To have somebody who was there, and can give us those small details of war is so useful. My father only ever spoke about the lighter side of his war. My Grandfather never talked about his time in the threnches. I learned more about him from one of his friends. But he was a very quiet man. 5Ft 6in built like a drink of water, but would never back down, and would lay down his life for his. friends and family. Oh, I picked up a book called A Noble Crusade. About the 8th Armoured.
G F
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.