Independence minded folk - A question

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ah, I see. You pick and choose which murderous dictatorships you want overthrown. You must have a list of nice US friendly dictators that are okay, where you turn a blind eye. And you have a list of nasty anti-US dictators that need to be attacked. (When I say YOU pick and choose, obviously I meant the US government picks and chooses for you. Then you come on here and parrot their propaganda).

Er, no. You want all dictators to stay in power and I want all of them to be removed. That's precisely my point. I'm not naive enough to think that the US cares much about the people suffering under these regimes but I can admit that sometimes the desires of US policymakers coincide with my own. Incidentally,the only person parroting propaganda here is you, and its in the service of some truly horrible people. You would rather we just left everybody to get on with it I assume? If not what's your answer?

I'm assuming you're talking about President Bush.

WOW. What a clever remark. The scales have fallen from my eyes.

Do you acknowledge that your stance with regard to Iraq and indeed anywhere else involved the maintenance of corrupt and often murderous regimes? And that you should face up to this? If not why not?

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by Daddy'O'Hibee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm no economist Smurf, but i understand the serious implications to my country and the world as a whole, at the important part oil plays in our everyday lives, i think civil war in the US could be an eventual scenario if the wells ran dry. In human suffering where do we draw the line for our needs. Answers are obviously strained and drained, as the suffering in Iraq appears to indicate.
What price our comfort, hard world ahead for our children. It appears that the UN is a waste of time on these serious matters, when so few countries have control of the many.

I think you're unnecessarily pessimistic. (I also don't think Iraq had much to do with oil, but that's another issue). The US leads the world in biofuels because it's obsessed with energy independence, for example. Unfortunately this has increased grain prices by something like forty per cent last year which impacts on poorer farmers everywhere.

Once again a compact with an upside and a downside. What a complex world we live in.

[Daddy'O'Hibee]

Originally Posted by HenryLB
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think you're unnecessarily pessimistic. (I also don't think Iraq had much to do with oil, but that's another issue). The US leads the world in biofuels because it's obsessed with energy independence, for example. Unfortunately this has increased grain prices by something like forty per cent last year which impacts on poorer farmers everywhere.

Once again a compact with an upside and a downside. What a complex world we live in.

Oil was the main issue, feck now you've got me worried about food in the third world, all the fields there will be used to grow crops for ethanol, your right, forever the pessimist.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Stirlinghibee]

Originally Posted by HenryLB
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No. I've repeatedly argued for a more critical approach to China. On the contrary the only time that that country's human rights abuses seem to get brought up by the anti-US left is as a taunt to suggest that the west is complicit in its crimes, which is essentially a slightly distasteful form of point scoring. What would you do?

Henry, It is the Hypocracy of the US/UK et al that sickens me. I dont actually have a huge problem if Cheney appeared on CNN with a huge graph that said "Ok, West. You like your TV's, Floodlight soccer games, Cars to take you to the movies, Cheap Beer , mown golf fairways, Heart monitors et al, however my projections show that this will all end in 2050 with our present secured oil reserves, However, If we secured the Iraqi fields, kept stabiltity with the House of Saud, built a pipeline across the Caucuses, Destabilised Venezuela and eventually get our hands on Azadegan, you can have all this until 2070 and me and my oil producing friends can have a very good life". This statement would sit ok with me , as Cheney would not be exposing anything different from Julius Ceasar, Attilla the Hun, Fransico Pizzaro, Cecil Rhodes and even Adolf. Ie You have resources, we wantum.

No we get a load of Shite about "Freedom" , "Changing behaviours" , "Rule of law" , "will of the International community" and other such platitudes , all the whilst waterboarding goes on at Guantanamo.

[Green Sleeves]

Originally Posted by Daddy'O'Hibee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Iraq has nothing to do with WOMD, Britain, France and the US have all tried to help gain western corporate control of oil in the middle east most of this century, we're using more oil than ever now. The CIA operations in the middle east in the 60s was led by James Critchfield an old cold war expert, he helped give Saddam and the Baathist party the leg up in Iraq to counter the communist bogeyman threat . Even idiots know why the west is in Iraq today, slice of the petroleum pie, not WOMD, not Al Queda. Pipelines need to travel over land to ports and refineries, who's the next bogeyman in the war of the new world order ? The rights and wrongs of getting the oil to our cars, homes, workplace is the proper issue, that should be debated.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is true although only up to a point. Oil wasnt the only reason for attacking and then invading Iraq. The lucrative construction contracts for rebuilding what the US Air Force destroyed (cynical huh?) were a primary consideration, not just an afterthought.

It's not as if US Vice-President Dick Cheney helped decide to bomb Iraq back into the Dark Ages and then thought "Oh, what have we gone and done? Maybe we better help rebuild the country and award a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, the company which made me so rich."* Yes, it's a cynical and murderous way to make a buck but hey that's how the West was won.

To be fair to them the US government and the multinational global conglomerates they represent dont always use war and destruction to get these lucrative billion dollar construction contracts. They usually prefer the peaceful route of sending armies of CIA-trained economic hitmen into developing nations to convince them (Mafia-style) into massive construction projects such as dams, etc, that they can't afford. This in turn gives tin-pot dictators and US-friendly governments social and political kudos for winning jobs and services which their countries couldn't otherwise afford.

The rest is history. Or not as the case may be. The ensuing loans to developing nations - graciously provided by the likes of the US-compliant World Bank and IMF - allow US "special advisors" to get their claws into these countries' governments, and therefore their domestic policy-making. Savage cuts in public spending are then demanded to meet the debt repayment plan. It's a vicious cyle where the only winners are the US, their global concerns, and the tinpot dictators whose regime's palms are well greased.

Iraq has loads of oil so there's no worries with the repayments there. Yay! Just need to make sure the Iraqi oilfields are so heavily militarised that the local insurgents can't get near them. Which they have been. And which they always will be. Hence the primary reason the US won't leave Iraq: to protect their economic rape of the country.

And all's well that ends well. For the US.

*A FEW DICK CHENEY FACTS:

* Dick Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $30 million and $100 million, is largely derived from his time as CEO at Halliburton.
* Between 2001 and 2003, Dick Cheney was instrumental in pushing for the military decimation of Iraq.
* In 2003, Halliburton was granted a $7 billion no-bid contract for the rebuilding of Iraq following its military decimation.
* In 2005, the Cheneys reported their gross income as nearly $8.82 million. This was largely the result of exercising Halliburton stock options that had been set aside in 2001.

[Daddy'O'Hibee]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is true although only up to a point. Oil wasnt the only reason for attacking and then invading Iraq. The lucrative construction contracts for rebuilding what the US Air Force destroyed (cynical huh?) were a primary consideration, not just an afterthought.

It's not as if US Vice-President Dick Cheney helped decide to bomb Iraq back into the Dark Ages and then thought "Oh, what have we gone and done? Maybe we better help rebuild the country and award a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, the company which made me so rich."* Yes, it's a cynical and murderous way to make a buck but hey that's how the West was won.

To be fair to them the US government and the multinational global conglomerates they represent dont always use war and destruction to get these lucrative billion dollar construction contracts. They usually prefer the peaceful route of sending armies of CIA-trained economic hitmen into developing nations to convince them (Mafia-style) into massive construction projects such as dams, etc, that they can't afford. This in turn gives tin-pot dictators and US-friendly governments social and political kudos for winning jobs and services which their countries couldn't otherwise afford.

The rest is history. Or not as the case may be. The ensuing loans to developing nations - graciously provided by the likes of the US-compliant World Bank and IMF - allow US "special advisors" to get their claws into these countries' governments, and therefore their domestic policy-making. Savage cuts in public spending are then demanded to meet the debt repayment plan. It's a vicious cyle where the only winners are the US, their global concerns, and the tinpot dictators whose regime's palms are well greased.

Iraq has loads of oil so there's no worries with the repayments there. Yay! Just need to make sure the Iraqi oilfields are so heavily militarised that the local insurgents can't get near them. Which they have been. And which they always will be. Hence the primary reason the US won't leave Iraq: to protect their economic rape of the country.

And all's well that ends well. For the US.

*A FEW DICK CHENEY FACTS:

* Dick Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $30 million and $100 million, is largely derived from his time as CEO at Halliburton.
* Between 2001 and 2003, Dick Cheney was instrumental in pushing for the military decimation of Iraq.
* In 2003, Halliburton was granted a $7 billion no-bid contract for the rebuilding of Iraq following its military decimation.
* In 2005, the Cheneys reported their gross income as nearly $8.82 million. This was largely the result of exercising Halliburton stock options that had been set aside in 2001.

Sadly this is nearer the truth, or in my and a growing number of peoples minds, the exact truth.
Good post.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Green Sleeves]

Originally Posted by HenryLB
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Er, no. You want all dictators to stay in power and I want all of them to be removed. That's precisely my point. I'm not naive enough to think that the US cares much about the people suffering under these regimes but I can admit that sometimes the desires of US policymakers coincide with my own. Incidentally,the only person parroting propaganda here is you, and its in the service of some truly horrible people. You would rather we just left everybody to get on with it I assume? If not what's your answer?



WOW. What a clever remark. The scales have fallen from my eyes.

Do you acknowledge that your stance with regard to Iraq and indeed anywhere else involved the maintenance of corrupt and often murderous regimes? And that you should face up to this? If not why not?

Henry, this is very poor way of exchanging views on politics (or anything else), namely asking questions and then answering them yourself! It merely compounds your initial mistaken assumptions.

I'd like to think I'm relatively consistent (with regards to democracy and dictatorships). If an unelected dictatorship exists anywhere in the world I'd like to see it removed by the indigenous people of that country. If they seek international help the UN - for all its flaws - is the only official body to co-ordinate international pressure on that regime.

This applies to Iraq, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, the Basque Country, China, North Korea or Cuba. No exceptions. If the people want democracy and freedom then let's help them in the way THEY want, not the way the USA decides.

Unlike some opportunists - including the US and UK governments who sold him the weapons he used to oppress his own people - I've been opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime since the 1980s. I'd guess most of the anti-Iraq war people feel that way. But I'm also totally opposed to the USA assuming the role of international policeman of the world - a self-appointed role by the way unless you count God - and therefore opposed to any unilateral action the US takes anywhere.

You, on the other hand, are very inconsistent on the questions of democracy and liberty. You often start threads whinging about the democratically elected president of Venezuela but rarely start threads complaining about genuine unelected dictatorships, such as in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. That kind of hypocrisy and double standards makes it quite difficult to take anything you have to say on international politics seriously.

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Henry, this is very poor way of exchanging views on politics (or anything else), namely asking questions and then answering them yourself! It merely compounds your initial mistaken assumptions.

I don't think that's what I did at all.

I'd like to think I'm relatively consistent (with regards to democracy and dictatorships). If an unelected dictatorship exists anywhere in the world I'd like to see it removed by the indigenous people of that country. If they seek international help the UN - for all its flaws - is the only official body to co-ordinate international pressure on that regime.

That's a somewhat pessimistic view, since the UN is if anything more craven and profiteering than even Dick Cheney. It's also hamstrung by the security council veto.

Your answer is tantamount to saying you want nothing done. Grass roots movements cannot usually remove dictators or oppressive regimes on their own, and they are highly unlikely to get help from the UN to do so. You may wish it was different, but in the real world this is what you have to grapple with. As can be seen by the UN's brilliant track record of success in the Balkans, Rwanda, the Sudan...

This applies to Iraq, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, the Basque Country, China, North Korea or Cuba. No exceptions. If the people want democracy and freedom then let's help them in the way THEY want, not the way the USA decides.

Who is going to help them? The Basque Country, for example, has wanted independence for ages. It currently isn't enjoying that independence is it? And yet the UN has been around for plenty long enough. I can't even imagine that one would be that hard to sort out.

Unlike some opportunists - including the US and UK governments who sold him the weapons he used to oppress his own people - I've been opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime since the 1980s. I'd guess most of the anti-Iraq war people feel that way.

I'm sure you have been. But the corrollary to opposition to the Iraq invasion was the continuation of oppression. Earlier you accuse me of posing questions and then answering them, but it seems to me that to a certain extent I have to pose possible answers for you because you're so evasive about providing them yourself. What would you have done in 2002-3 wrt Saddam?

As an aside, three members of the security council were still selling Saddam significant amounts of weapons in 2001 so it might have been somewhat difficult to secure their support for curtailing his activities. Indeed on a dollar basis they were his three largest suppliers.

But I'm also totally opposed to the USA assuming the role of international policeman of the world - a self-appointed role by the way unless you count God - and therefore opposed to any unilateral action the US takes anywhere.

What about in the case of the Tsunami relief measures? The US were able to coordinate early efforts, pretty much unilaterally, because the US has C-130 airlifters. Ireland and Norway - who were so quick to go to the UN and denounce America's reaction - do not, so they have to wait for the gears of the international community to grind into action. This can take a long time. In the case of a disaster on such a scale this simply translates into more dead people, but you seem to be saying that this is something you're comfortable with as long as the niceties of international bureaucracy are observed.

You, on the other hand, are very inconsistent on the questions of democracy and liberty. You often start threads whinging about the democratically elected president of Venezuela but rarely start threads complaining about genuine unelected dictatorships, such as in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. That kind of hypocrisy and double standards makes it quite difficult to take anything you have to say on international politics seriously.

You've started more threads on Harry Potter than you have on every country in Africa put together. By your own logic not only are you equally as myopic as me, you are also by definition hypocritical. And I am free to take you as seriously as I see fit. Which isn't very.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Daddy'O'Hibee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm no economist Smurf, but i understand the serious implications to my country and the world as a whole, at the important part oil plays in our everyday lives, i think civil war in the US could be an eventual scenario if the wells ran dry. In human suffering where do we draw the line for our needs. Answers are obviously strained and drained, as the suffering in Iraq appears to indicate.
What price our comfort, hard world ahead for our children. It appears that the UN is a waste of time on these serious matters, when so few countries have control of the many.

One of the biggest arguments in favour of seeking new and renewable sources of power, even if you don't swallow the global warming agenda, is that it would enable us to extract ourselves from the geo-politics surrounding oil and gas supplies.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by LanarkHibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Correct Brian. We can have an informed debate on the best option for the country with the conclusions being made given the circumstances at the time and the short and long-term merits of the options.

That seems to call for a vote for independence as a matter of faith. Will voters not want to see more of the proposal firmed up before committing to the coarse of action?

I think there are good examples to be drawn from. As I said, I don't think Iceland is one of them but Ireland and, to a much greater extent, Norway, provide models - although we all must admit, it would be, to some extent, a leap in the dark.

[HenryLB]

Does anyone think that Scotland would ever genuinely have its own currency? That seems wildly improbable to me.

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by HenryLB
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Does anyone think that Scotland would ever genuinely have its own currency? That seems wildly improbable to me.

No. Euro though is a cert as it is in the rest of the UK.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Smurf
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No. Euro though is a cert as it is in the rest of the UK.

That would be worse than the pound if the concern is that interest rates do not take into account the particular needs of Scotland.

Back to my favourite example Norway. They had monetary union with Sweden and Denmark but both now have their own currencies. Monetary union only lasted 40 years buth there are quite a few parallels between Norway/Sweden and England/Scotland.