[BBC News] Islanders remember the war dead

[P.K.]

Not only that but I can see a time in the not too distance future where using military power to secure a scarce vital natural resource becomes the norm.

Do you not think it is the norm already? If weaker states are not compliant with the West then force is often used. The Iraq War, the Gulf War, and the Suez Crises are good examples.

Afghanistan has no natural resources that we would need in the future so no, I don't think it is the norm already. But that's subjective, isn't it?

"A dictator who invaded two of his neighbours etc etc." You can spend decades reading the works of Shakespeare to three monkeys and at the end of it you'll just have - three monkeys.

Once again "Welcome to Reality World" etc etc. You just don't get it, do you?

If it really is the case that I am not 'getting it' I would love to find out exactly what I am not getting here. You tend to spend more time prattling on about some awareness of the facts that you have and awareness that I lack.

Than what? Or is your grammar letting you down again?

 

Saddam was a brutal dictator, he invaded two of his neighbours costing thousands of lives, he destabilised a strategically vital region, he used WMD on his own people and had active programs to develop more to what end I wonder? To me he just had to go. To the hand-wringing apologists the previous reasons are insufficient justification but I can live with that because he's gone.

 

How are those "poor men at the front" by the way, any ideas?

[mollag]

At the Douglas War Memorial and the Tynwald War Memorial the Freemasons laid wreaths. Probably elsewhere too.

 

I cannot come to terms with this.

 

As a civilian organisation I am sure they have every right to be represented. I simply do not see why such an organisation with secrets feels it needs to display its presence in a National ceremony remembering people who gave up their very lives so that we could live in a free and fair society.

 

It kinda rubs your nose in it.

 

Having powerful secretive organisations running in the background ain't freedom, our kid.

Seconded. It's a measure of their influence that they can commandeer a slot to lay "their" wreath. What a sick joke. The nods at the sharp end are not doing it to maintain the Freemasons secretive world of privilege, that's for sure.

 

Is there space for you consider that many freemasons are exservicemen, that many fremasons died in the service of their country and that they give generously to British Legion charities? no? lets have some proof then of Masonic secretive worlds of privelege, oops i forgot, its a secret.

The effing gall of people picking and choosing who may or may not show respect, shameful.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Afghanistan has no natural resources that we would need in the future so no, I don't think it is the norm already. But that's subjective, isn't it?

 

I agree about Afghanistan. I did mis-read your earlier post as you said 'scarce' and 'vital' and my response was simply about natural resources. And in reference to natural resouces it is a norm that the powerful coerce (often with force) the weak to secure resources, maintain trade, etc.

In terms of vital resources it is not the norm. In terms of oil the securing of this resource has been achieved by supporting authoritarian, pro-West regimes, such as those in Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, as well as Iraq prior to the Gulf War. I really hope it does not come to a point in the future, as your saying, when states resort to war to secure resources. It is not inevitable however.

 

Than what? Or is your grammar letting you down again?

 

And I had no idea it was that bad. I would love to see where I am failing myself.

[ourtess]

My Dad fought the Germans, as did millions of others.

Because of that we don't have extermination camps in the British Isles.

 

They did the right thing.

[P.K.]

In terms of oil the securing of this resource has been achieved by supporting authoritarian, pro-West regimes, such as those in Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, as well as Iraq prior to the Gulf War. I really hope it does not come to a point in the future, as your saying, when states resort to war to secure resources. It is not inevitable however.

Yes we will support our allies, that's why they are our allies you know. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are excellent examples. We supported them against the threat of invasion from..... Iraq! Which is why I think Saddam had to go.

 

I'm convinced that in the future it is inevitable that we shall use military force to secure a scarce natural resource. Sure I have a bleak outlook but at least I can face the reality of the situation. The bleakest observation being that shit happens.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In terms of oil the securing of this resource has been achieved by supporting authoritarian, pro-West regimes, such as those in Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, as well as Iraq prior to the Gulf War. I really hope it does not come to a point in the future, as your saying, when states resort to war to secure resources. It is not inevitable however.

Yes we will support our allies, that's why they are our allies you know. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are excellent examples. We supported them against the threat of invasion from..... Iraq! Which is why I think Saddam had to go.

 

I'm convinced that in the future it is inevitable that we shall use military force to secure a scarce natural resource. Sure I have a bleak outlook but at least I can face the reality of the situation. The bleakest observation being that shit happens.

 

Yes, they are our allies because the regimes in these countries allow so much business to be done with Britain in arms. But mainly because the West would not like to see the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti regimes toppled by an Iraqi government that is far less compliant than the exisiting regimes in those countries. To not moralise, the reality of British foreign policy in the Middle East over the past fifty years has nothing to do with international law, protecting human rights, and democracy but about maintaining influence in the region. Actually, in respect of norms, the West's meddling in the Middle East to secure resources is certainly a norm. The reason military action is not the norm is because the West already has considerable influence over the Middle East.

It is about oil, which is vital for the functioning of the global economy, an economy supervised by the West. So I understand that protection of Kuwait was to maintain the status quo; Saddam might not have 'played ball' if he had control of Kuwaiti oil.

It is not that that I am unaware of the realities of the world we live in but rather my criticism of them that forms my arguments surrounding foreign policy and war.

 

There is a very strong chance of a global struggle for resources. The only reason why I think it would not be inevitable is that if resources became so scarce there will hopefully be a collapse of the international economy. Once the existing mechanisms of global trade fall apart if we're lucky there will be a global reappraisal of how to continue. I am only speculating. Though what is fact is he existing international economy in which we live is not sustainable. It will be very difficult for the liberal democratic governments of the West to go to war in a blatant effort to control resources. The only reason why warfare has been accepted by the public as much as it has of recent is due to the propraganda thrown down everyone's throats about the humanitarian goals. Certainly, any use of force aimed at exploiting another country's resources would be completely inhumanitarian.