It's not hard people. All this pro-Israel vs. pro-Arab crap is a bunch of bologna. It's all about drugs and oil. Afghanistan is entirely about the opium trade (which the CIA dominates and controls and uses to its benefit), and the construction of vital Central Asian pipelines. The primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was oil as well. The CIA is currently working on destablizing the Saudi regime, as it can't overtly topple the regime in a mass invasion, because of close political connections between American elites, Wall Street, and the Saudi royal family, who have massive investments in American financial interests.
The U.S. has turned the Central Asian republics into a de-facto American protectorate, bulding permanent, large military bases and stationing troops all along the routes of crucial pipelines.
France, Germany, and Russia opposed the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq because of their own vested financial interests in the country. Iraq was in the process of switching its oil reserve cash to the Euro, and Franco-German and Russian investments would be lost in the event of a U.S.-U.K. controlled Iraq. Because of the conquest of Iraq, the U.S. and U.K. together now control another 11% of the world's oil reserves. Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy, and the world's elites are doing everything in their power to prevent the transition to alternative sources of energy, while paying lip-service to such green endeavors. Whoever control's the world's oil controls the world. That is why U.S. foriegn policy officials are so obsessed with controlling the Middle East and gaining access to their oil. All other energy alternatives thus far presented are not economical, and any transition from petroleum to another form of energy would be a long, painful process, leaving millions upon millions of people unemployed, millions starving, and at least 20 years of severe recession.
The elites who rule America are driven to maintain the status quo with regard to energy for two reasons:
1. - Most of these elites are either from or have close connections to the Oil and/or Defense industry and would therefore in the interests of self-preservation, do everything in their power to protect their product.
2. - So long as oil remains the chief source of energy for the world's population and the U.S. controls it, the U.S. alone will remain the world's sole, permanent, and unchallenged superpower, despite the fact that China and India will have far larger economies and populations in the near future. If the U.S. controls oil, it can decide who has access to the oil, and it would certainly not allow its main rivals or competitors to have its oil, thereby strangling their economies and effectively eliminating any chance of challenging U.S. supremacy.
And mark this down. Regardless of who controls the British parliament, the U.K. will always adopt a friendly stance toward the U.S. Rhetoric from current British politicians might lead many to believe otherwise, but in the long run, the U.K. will always side with the U.S. over the EU in foreign affairs. The same interests which control American government likewise control Britain, and the two countries share mutal interests. For all intensive purposes, the U.K. is a mere satelite of the U.S.
I find it to be a rather funny coincedence that in the wake of the recent departure of Blair and the arrival of the new PM, a string of terror attacks have ravaged the U.K. Terrorism serves to frighten a citizenry, and spurs people to patriotism, nationalism, and support of aggressive foreign policy, thereby allowing politicians to get away with inconcievale acts of agression such as the invasion of Iraq. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
When I was younger and did not completely understand the situation, I was very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. In fact, I still sympathise with the ordinary victims who are made to suffer the vagaries of Israeli occupation.
However, I also deeply sympathise with the ordinary Israelis who have been threatened with extinction since their tenuous founding in 1948. The right to exist for Israel is an inalienable and an unalterable one. The failure to recognise this right on the part of the Palestinians resulted in their long interminable hardship and suffering. When someone shoots himself in his foot, who do we blame?
You are surely jesting when you scoff at Israel's democratic credentials. Free and democratic elections are a constant staple of local politics. The Knesset also represents the local Arabic community and they are not persecuted, contrary to media misrepresentations. Nobody can deny that the Israeli-Arabs are sometimes regarded with suspicion and opprobrium by their Jewish neighbours. However, the freedom that they enjoy is still a source of envy for their Arabic-speaking compatriots in the region.
This brings us to the new role of Mr Blair as the Middle East peace envoy. One of the arguments mooted in his favour was his allegedly good working relationship between both the Israeli and the Fatah-led leadership in Palestine. That can only be his real source of strength, though. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
I inveigh against the over-simplification or 'dumbing down' of what is happening in the Middle East. I regard any CIA sponsored conspiracies with a healthy dose of scepticism. I look askance at any theory which proposes that the premise of american foreign policy is founded upon oil. Probe a bit further and you'd find gaping loopholes.
If Iraqi oil is now under the jurisdiction of America, directly or indirectly, you should be happy. Petrol would continue to be a very affordable commodity for you and your children. However, it is instead more likely that the price of petrol would continue to spiral upwards in a trend that is not likely to slaken off for the foreseeable future. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
If Iraqi oil is now under the jurisdiction of America, directly or indirectly, you should be happy. Petrol would continue to be a very affordable commodity for you and your children.
Not everyone is motivated primarily by such vested self-interests. This sort of attitude seems comparable to when some rich people support lower taxes simply because they want to keep more money for themselves.
The SNP are simply repeating what they were told by the Secretary General of the European Commission.
Then a inquiry needs to be conducted: why is someone who should have known better been caught spouting nonsense?
Quote:
Precisely. If anything, I imagine that the EU would be more worried that Scotland might turn around and say 'no thanks' and follow Norway's example. Keyword: oil.
You conveniently forgot to mention my concerns. Would the ordinary man on the street care about something as dull as oil when he is voting for or against Scotland's membership? I said that as it is, France is already constitutionally required to hold a referendum whenever new countries are admitted into the club.
Besides, the entry of any new member would bring forth a completely different set of problems. Maybe Poland might take advantage of this opportunity to press for more concessions before agreeing to Scottish entry, who knows?
Quote:
Really? Would you say that Scotland currently has more global influence than Denmark? Or that Bavaria has more global influence than the Netherlands? Or that Texas has more global influence than Australia?
Yes to the first; yes to the second; yes to the third.
1st Question: We can all name famous Scotsmen who had wielded global influence by virtue of being a British subject; the most influential Danish, on the other hand, would probably have to be the Shakespearean Hamlet.
2nd Question: Bavaria was the birthplace of national socialism and served as an incubator for many of the nascent Nazi ideas that were later unleashed upon the world. Of course, Bavaria also has many notable and positive accomplishments in its own right, but the point I am making here is that this southern German state, through its association with Germany, has left a deeper imprint on the world than the Netherlands.
3rd Question: Need I mention who is currently a resident of the White House?
Quote:
There is also the argument that it is not desirable for a small country of 5 million people to have a large amount of global influence anyway. It would be rather unfair on the rest of the world if it did.
Did you just score an own goal? Are you tacitly admitting that Scotland, by virtue of being part of the Union, wields a disproportionately large amount of global influence?
Quote:
Very similar to Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc.
All of them have their own armed forces. Swedish armaments are also world renowned to be of high calibre.
In contrast, Scotland would not be able to lift a finger to defend herself.
Quote:
Green politics emphasise decentralisation of power such that matters are controlled by the people who are most affected by them. However, I do believe that certain things should be decided on a global scale — issues concerning human rights and the environment, for example.
Most relatively mainstream 'proper left-wing' political parties support Scottish independence. However, this might not have been the case if the British government hadn't been so right-wing, neo-liberal and neo-conservative for the past 28 years. (This is arguably the real reason for why there are so many people in Scotland who support independence).
I still find 'green politics' a very woolly idea. What exactly is the ambit of decentralised power? Should the Outer Hebrides then also vote for independence as they would presumably chafe at being ruled from 'faraway Holyrood'? After all, this isolated region would presumably form a distinct community with separate local interests. Why should they then not clamour for independence as well?
Scottish aspirations for independence would have been noble and maybe even a little romantic if they are not so rabidly anglophobic. I once read disturbing reports about a football fan in Scotland wearing the flag of St George and who was roughed up by the local mobs for having the temerity to do so. To me, that's not cricket. It's not a very gentlemanly thing to do.
Even the English cheer lustily for the Scottish-born Andrew Murray at Wimbledon. I don't think England-born Tim Henman can expect a similarly rousing reception north of the border. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Not everyone is motivated primarily by such vested self-interests. This sort of attitude seems comparable to when some rich people support lower taxes simply because they want to keep more money for themselves.
Sometimes, I think the tax rate is too high, not just for the rich but for everyone.
But this is an entirely different kettle of fish. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
You conveniently forgot to mention my concerns. Would the ordinary man on the street care about something as dull as oil when he is voting for or against Scotland's membership?
Probably not.
loic wrote:
I said that as it is, France is already constitutionally required to hold a referendum whenever new countries are admitted into the club.
Which I think is absolutely outrageous. But seriously, I can't imagine why many people in France would vote against it.
Of course, this is all assuming that an independent Scotland would actually want to join the EU — or whatever the EU is by the time Scotland is independent (which will almost certainly be another 10 years at the very least, and probably twice as long if not more). There may need to be a referendum on this subject, and although the SNP might be strongly pro-EU, not all of the Scottish electorate necessarily are.
loic wrote:
Did you just score an own goal? Are you tacitly admitting that Scotland, by virtue of being part of the Union, wields a disproportionately large amount of global influence?
I don't know, and I don't really care either. My support for Scottish independence is not motivated by the desire to increase or decrease Scotland's global influence.
loic wrote:
Quote:
Very similar to Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc.
All of them have their own armed forces. Swedish armaments are also world renowned to be of high calibre.
In contrast, Scotland would not be able to lift a finger to defend herself.
Why not? Too impoverished? Too stupid? (The essence behind many of Labour's unionist scare tactics). This seems to go against your claim that Scotland presently has a lot of global influence.
loic wrote:
I still find 'green politics' a very woolly idea. What exactly is the ambit of decentralised power? Should the Outer Hebrides then also vote for independence as they would presumably chafe at being ruled from 'faraway Holyrood'? After all, this isolated region would presumably form a distinct community with separate local interests. Why should they then not clamour for independence as well?
They can if they want. Greens are usually sympathetic to most 'separatist' movements. In the European Parliament, there is a coalition between the European Green Party and the European Free Alliance — which includes parties such as the SNP.
I inveigh against the over-simplification or 'dumbing down' of what is happening in the Middle East. I regard any CIA sponsored conspiracies with a healthy dose of scepticism. I look askance at any theory which proposes that the premise of american foreign policy is founded upon oil. Probe a bit further and you'd find gaping loopholes.
If Iraqi oil is now under the jurisdiction of America, directly or indirectly, you should be happy. Petrol would continue to be a very affordable commodity for you and your children. However, it is instead more likely that the price of petrol would continue to spiral upwards in a trend that is not likely to slaken off for the foreseeable future.
Are you blind, man? 6 out of 7 CIA directors all came from Wall Street backgrounds. The predecessor of the CIA, the "Office of Strategic Services" (OSS) was headquartered on Wall Street! Where do most ex-CIA executives go upon retirement from the agency? Wall Street!
As for the current White House administration, look at the key players, and tell me their main focus isn't oil. Condoleeza Rice, former executive and Central Asian expert with Chevron. Dick Cheney, former chariman of Halliburton. Bush himself, with family ties to the Carlyle group and the oil industry. The list goes on and on. How many "coincedences" does it take to rouse you out of your stupor?
I'm not anti-Capitalist, or a supporter of socialism or anything of that sort, but what I cannot do, is ignore obvious facts. Take the veil off your eyes and see for yourself. You can't be so gullible as to believe that those who control the White House are benevolent figures, looking out for the best interests of the American people, and incapable of crime. You see it that way. I look deeper, and I see a bunch of politicians, notorious for being crooked, who have to answer to campaign donors and big-business interests, as well as powerful-lobby groups. Money talks, and bullshit walks. That's the way this world is, and it's no different in the upper echelons of government.
Quote:
If Iraqi oil is now under the jurisdiction of America, directly or indirectly, you should be happy.
There's no if in that above sentence. American companies have confiscated Iraqi oil, and they own it, yes. This is a fact. In some cases, because of agreements with the Iraqis, U.S. and Iraqi companies share joint ventures in some of Iraq's oil, usually with the American companies controlling 60+%. But by and large, American oil companies are now in control of Iraqi oil.
Quote:
Petrol would continue to be a very affordable commodity for you and your children.
Not true at all. We have about 20-25 years before we run out of petroleum. In the meantime, U.S. energy giants are still going to sell their oil on the global market, and as long as China and India's booming economies continue to go through the roof, world demand will continue to to skyrocket, and in the absence of new discoveries and increased supply, prices will inevitably continue to rise for American and global consumers alike. Government support of the seizure of oil in sovereign lands isn't for the purpose of benefiting the everyday American citizen. It's about lining the pockets of the major corporations. American consumers won't realize any benefits until we reach peak oil stage. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Scottish aspirations for independence would have been noble and maybe even a little romantic if they are not so rabidly anglophobic. I once read disturbing reports about a football fan in Scotland wearing the flag of St George and who was roughed up by the local mobs for having the temerity to do so. To me, that's not cricket. It's not a very gentlemanly thing to do.
(Sorry, I meant to respond to this before).
One shouldn't confuse this sort of behaviour and attitude with support for Scottish independence. Although it might seem reasonable (especially to an outsider) that those Scottish people with anti-English attitudes would be pro-independence, this really is not necessarily the case at all.
On a sort-of related note, I'll also point out that people living in deprived areas of Glasgow (where violence of any sort is most common, be it anti-English or otherwise) largely don't vote SNP. Rather, the SNP's core support is found in the Northeast, and has recently extended such that it's now the main party in Tayside, Fife, the areas in and around Stirling and Perth, and also in the Highlands.
Sometimes, I think the tax rate is too high, not just for the rich but for everyone.
This I agree with. Higher tax rates do not necessarily go hand in hand with higher tax revenues. The taxation of capital and the taxation of entrepreneurship (i.e. - upper-income tax brackets which disproportionately affect small business owners) hampers economic growth. When the economy grows and more jobs are created, everyone benefits, not just the rich. Of course, this could result in lop-sided growth that increases the rich-poor gap, with the rich benefiting the most, but that does not mean that the poor don't benefit as well.
I advocate the elimination of the capital gains and dividend taxes, as they disrupt the capitalist system and the free market's allocation of resources. I think income taxes are at a reasonable level in this country as they are right now. But eliminate the taxation of investment and you will see a marked increase in economic growth, and thus higher tax revenues from the taxation of income, which would cancel out any of the losses reaped from the elimination of the taxation of capital.
I'm somewhat of a libertarian leaning individual, who also supports socialized healthcare. Go figure.
Essentially like the Conservative Party (and New Labour?) in Britain then. And actually, I think you'd probably be to the right of most Scottish Conservatives.
When I was younger and did not completely understand the situation, I was very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. In fact, I still sympathise with the ordinary victims who are made to suffer the vagaries of Israeli occupation.
It's quite the opposite for me. Although I was shocked by the brutality and violence endured by the Palestinians, I used to be inclined to view Israel favourably. I no longer am. I even think a two-Sate approach is no solution to the problem. This is why I suscribe to the dissolution of Israel and its replacement by the State of Palestine without that either future ex-Israelis (including Arabs) or Palestinians (to the lesser meaning of that word → Gazaouis, Cisjordanians & the Palestinian diaspora) be forced to leave their homes. There is no other solution.
loic wrote:
The right to exist for Israel is an inalienable and an unalterable one.
No. Israel's accession to Statehood was largely fortuitous and based on spoliation and terrorism. What is more, unconditional pro-Israel support by successive Western powers has led to gradual confiscation of Palestinian rights and lands up to such a point that Israel is now behaving as a declared outlaw (despite all the usual propaganda).
loic wrote:
The failure to recognise this right on the part of the Palestinians resulted in their long interminable hardship and suffering. When someone shoots himself in his foot, who do we blame?
Palestine is a dismantled, occupied country. You can't ask the victim the "recognise" the "right" of the invader.
loic wrote:
Free and democratic elections are a constant staple of local politics.
Free and democratic elections for whom ? For the citizens of Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians, who still are nowhere's subcitizens ?
loic wrote:
The Knesset also represents the local Arabic community and they are not persecuted, contrary to media misrepresentations.
The local Arabic community, as you put it, is just the tiny fraction of the Palestinian population allowed to reside in the areas of former Palestine that are known as Israel. But where has the rest gone ? Why don't the Israeli parliament want to represent them too ? Isn't massive, forced exile a barbaric form of persecution ?
loic wrote:
Nobody can deny that the Israeli-Arabs are sometimes regarded with suspicion and opprobrium by their Jewish neighbours. However, the freedom that they enjoy is still a source of envy for their Arabic-speaking compatriots in the region.
Yep, like the Amerindians in the US. You are free, but your people and your country isn't there anymore. Strange freedom.
loic wrote:
This brings us to the new role of Mr Blair as the Middle East peace envoy. One of the arguments mooted in his favour was his allegedly good working relationship between both the Israeli and the Fatah-led leadership in Palestine. That can only be his real source of strength, though.
I think what the region least needs is another Brit to make things worse. Le mandat britannique a laissé une saveur acide en Palestine. L'idée de laisser Blair s'occuper un tant soit peu de cette région est une forfaiture sans nom. Quant à Blair, son aveuglement et sa folle vanité en font un pitoyable personnage.
Greg, I agree with you 95% (approximately). I also find the two-state solution lacking, even though it's essentially the only serious proposal around these days. The biggest problem with the two-state model is that Palestine would basically just be the leftovers from Israel, not to mention the logistics problems of running a country divided into two non-contiguous sections. The ideal solution for me would be a single state without any basis in Jewish, Arab, or Muslim culture/religion: call it Mediterranea, say. The Palestinean refugees in neighbouring countries would be allowed to return, and then the right of return would be cancelled and immigration would preceed as usual with no preference for ethnicity or religion. Of course, this state would be overwhelmingly Arab and/or Muslim, and would therefore never happen. Where I differ from you Greg, is that I think the two-state solution is the only way to achieve peace in the short term. Peace is a prerequisite for justice and freedom, in my opinion.
_________________ L'homme est comme Dieu l'a fait et un peu pire/ L'homme est le seul animal qui détruit pour le plaisir
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
