P.K. Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I think Tony Blair must be related to Ann Reynolds !!, when one statement is shown to be a load of rubbish the 'cause' changes to something else. He realises he has a problem with the enquiry and is preparing the ground for some more 'spin'. Complete bollocks. The West needs a stable Middle-East to function - bye bye Saddam. At a stroke Blair has emasculated all the thicko, BBB, baying "No WMD in Iraq" brigade. Not that they're worth anything anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Tony Blair would lie, he can't tell the truth behind what it was all about. A post oil world would end up being a dangerous one, so there isn't a plan B.What do you mean by a 'post oil world'? The world is already extremely dangerous. Do you also think that the American/Western need for oil is such to warrant the killing of many thousands? Complete bollocks. The West needs a stable Middle-East to function - bye bye Saddam. At a stroke Blair has emasculated all the thicko, BBB, baying "No WMD in Iraq" brigade. Not that they're worth anything anyway...If a stable Middle East was needed for the West to function(whatever you mean by function), then do you also think the lives of many thousands justifies such a war? Stability is not something the West is particularly in, but rather a certain political structure and particular relations with those states in the Middle East. If the USA, for example, wanted stability in the Middle East it would have a completely different relationship with Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Tony Blair would lie, he can't tell the truth behind what it was all about. A post oil world would end up being a dangerous one, so there isn't a plan B.What do you mean by a 'post oil world'? The world is already extremely dangerous. Do you also think that the American/Western need for oil is such to warrant the killing of many thousands? have you seen the Mad max films Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I think Tony Blair must be related to Ann Reynolds !!, when one statement is shown to be a load of rubbish the 'cause' changes to something else. He realises he has a problem with the enquiry and is preparing the ground for some more 'spin'. Complete bollocks. The West needs a stable Middle-East to function - bye bye Saddam. At a stroke Blair has emasculated all the thicko, BBB, baying "No WMD in Iraq" brigade. Not that they're worth anything anyway... I am saddened you think it is bollocks that a leader should tell the truth to justify sending our young men to war ! the parents of those who have died have little comfort from the politicos maneuverings ! Nor am I a surrender monkey, just think that if we have to fight then it should be with the backing of our democracy having been told the whole truth ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Republican Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 The thing is people can't take the truth. You can't cause panic. A politcian won't get elected by telling the truth. We all live, I think with perilous optimism. So people rarely want to know the truth, the innocent deaths were inevitable, that is the nature of conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Nor am I a surrender monkey, just think that if we have to fight then it should be with the backing of our democracy having been told the whole truth !But we don't live in a democracy nor have democratic government. Anyone who believes that government is not acting properly not telling the truth is ignorant of what their government is. The thing is people can't take the truth. You can't cause panic. A politcian won't get elected by telling the truth.We all live, I think with perilous optimism. So people rarely want to know the truth, the innocent deaths were inevitable, that is the nature of conflict. Panic over what? I disagree with what you say about the truth, I think that people do want to know the truth. However, people receive so much information from the media, from government, and from other corporate services, from sources that they recognise as having the ability and motive the twist truths, misrepresent information, and exaggerate the significance of certain information. And we also live in a society where these information producing bodies seek to create or enhance interest in certain aspects of our lives as opposed to others, such as competitive sports or buying products. It's not that people can't take the truth - it just isn't high on those priorities they have been told to live by and they are rightly sceptical of what comes out of government and the media. The deaths in Iraq were certainly not inevitable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Republican Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 There is no real effective substitute for oil. Panic buying would be the cause of explaining the problem with the world's oil supply. All that has happened over the past century is just that people have extracted the black gold from the ground, no one invented for this gold. It has just been used, just like yeast expands. As a species we have just moved and expanded without the thought of the consequences. We are entering the age of hard to get oil, the economy relies on cheap oil, not expensive oil. We worship this stuff, it is our god. The age of oil has been a party, and we have to choose to either continue this party or slow it down, and bring it to a controlled end. Half a century from now it could be less, it depends, this island for example would be living a much older way of life not seen by this generation. Super markets would be a thing of the past, long distance air travel, car travel, early space flight, satelites. All the gadgets, certain clothing, modern day farming, oil based. Could the amount of food intake on this island, vegetables be grown all here and the meats be all produced here as it stands? A lot of food travels long distances, so a self suficient island living with in its means would be the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Well people know that oil is running out but they may not know how little is left. But the fact that people do not know the truths intentions and plans for Iraq is not about averting panic, but rather to avoid opposition to such a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Well people know that oil is running out but they may not know how little is left. But the fact that people do not know the truths intentions and plans for Iraq is not about averting panic, but rather to avoid opposition to such a war. well not really. easy oil is running out, but because the price gos up then the more expensive stuff to take out of the ground is ready to take the slack up. theres plenty to go round, just depends how big your pockets are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 What are you saying 'not really' to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 that oil is running out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Republican Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Yes, so the only option if nothing is going to change, is to prepare one's self for that eventuallity. It won't be simple. But that is the alternative. There is a real chance for this island if the politicians here can try and act on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Prepare how? By invading other countries? You think our need to maintain our living standards justifies abrogating international law, the slaughtering of others, and maintenance of a particular mode of economics that the West had set in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Republican Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 prepare as in learn camping skills, things of a practical nature. Invading wasn't the right way, it was just a desparate and flaud, animalistic way of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I don't know about animalistic, not sure what they means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.