OP/ED: Half Truths And Revolutions: What Our Governments Dont Want Us To Know

I didn't say proof Subz. I would have liked to have seen some of your rationale for forming the opinion you presented--I might even have agreed with it had you done so--You know I often do. BTW the criteria you used in one of your arguments to my statement about Blair & Bush being a reflection of ourselves would rule out just about every leader either country has ever had. I can't think of even one who actually garnered over 50% of the people at large.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Good Op/Ed subz.

It's along the same line of thinking as this old thread of mine: Where's the Conspiracy?

The PTB know what the score is and are preparing as best they can.

I think they are both influencing events to their advantage through proxies as well as implementing whatever they can when opportunities arise.

Whether those opportunities are created or come by chance (or Mother Nature) makes no difference if the end result is the same.
.

Originally posted by subz
Oil and its price is inextricably linked to our food supply and its price. Food prices and a population's access to it is THE PARAMOUNT cause of revolution in the last 300 years. Both the Russian and French revolutions arose because the people were starving and only the rich ruling elite could afford food.

So what happens if our governments find themselves in a position where we are all starving because oil is too expensive? History clearly shows there would be a revolution.

Is it governmental half-truths they tell us or is that our History books are telling half-truths?
The reason I ask is because you assert that the reason the French and Russian Revolutions arose because people were starving.
Is this a half-truth?
Is it the only reason that both occurred?
Having studied both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolutions, along with the American Revolution and the Springtime of Nations of 1848, among other smaller, non-violent revolutions, there were a number of causes for the French and Russian Revolutions taking place.

In the two that you refer to, food prices were a factor, one of many factors.

Anyhow, I do understand the point you are making,
I can agree with some of it, but not all of it.
Just because food prices will increase due to oil prices rising [ie: transportation costs, shipping costs, packaging costs, etc.], this does not necessarily indicate that Revolution is in the air. As indicated, revolution does not occur simply or only because of higher food prices, it occurs in addition or in combination to a number of other factors/causes. Even then, when combined, revolution is not guaranteed to occur, and if they combine to spark a revolution, there is no guarantee of such being successful.

As to the West buying time before the eventual crush of impending revolution, that may be a rational evaluation, but one I find a bit incredulous.
Besides, subz, if politicians are not lying or telling half-truths, they are not doing what politicians are famous and notorious for doing.






seekerof

Gools - I never saw your OP-ED piece before--it was really good. I added a comment to it just so you'de know I read it.

I'm not convinced about the idea of a revolution happening because of oil prices and their links to food. I think history is replete with solutions other than revolutions--mostly aggression to simply take what is needed.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I didn't say proof Subz. I would have liked to have seen some of your rationale for forming the opinion you presented--I might even have agreed with it had you done so--You know I often do.

I thought that the causes of the French and Russian revolutions were common knowledge. I also thought that the link between fuel and food prices was also common knowledge. I also thought that the fact oil is a finite resource and the supply of which appears to be declining was also common knowledge.

I could of provided links to all of the above but considered it overkill really. If you dont agree with my conclusion, hey thats fine with me, just tell me so and lets discuss it. Its the no votes which annoy me because my Op/Ed doesnt warrant a no vote in the slighest. You can still disagree with a submissions content but if it doesnt fit one of the no vote criteria you shouldnt vote no.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
BTW the criteria you used in one of your arguments to my statement about Blair & Bush being a reflection of ourselves would rule out just about every leader either country has ever had. I can't think of even one who actually garnered over 50% of the people at large.

That assumes that I have recognized prior leaders authourity to claim a true mandate in the past, which I havent. I dont think the system we currently have can truly provide a voice for the people. Proportional representation would be a much truer form of government and one that avoids claims from some one who 15% of the country supports claiming to speak or reflect 100% of us.

Even so, how does the fact whether or not they do speak for all of us change what I have said? You assume they are not capable of such cold blooded acts such as killing their own citizens. Well im sure you are familiar with Operation Northwoods which was proposed to your President Kennedy in the 60's. It was a Joint Chief's proposal to get the American airforce to shoot down a plane load of American college students flying from Florida to the Carribean and blaming it on the Cubans. They would then use this as a pretext for invading Cuba. The proposal has been released under the FOIA and shows that its an old idea and well within the realm of feasibilty.

Also, psychologically what is the difference between authourizing a war in Iraq or Afghanistan where you know for sure there will be innocent casualties and deaths and ordering the killing of a couple of thousand of your own citizens if you think its serving the greater good? If I myself thought I'd be saving the lives of the entire 60,000,000 Britons by allowing 2,000 of them to die I would do it, wouldnt you?

Im not even sure I think securing our access to oil fields is a bad idea in a selfish way. We do need that oil and we're screwed with out it. Its the deceit and the clandestine manner in which our governments are conducting themselves which infuriates me. They are not stopping at securing our access to the worlds oil reserves, they are lining their own pockets in the process and removing our civil rights because it makes their lives easier.

If a sober faced President or Prime Minister came on national tv and announced that we are running out of oil and our society is on the brink of total collapse if we do not acquire our own access to the Worlds reserves I would of backed it 100%. If it necessitated the use of our military to invade Iraq to secure our access to it then I wouldnt really like the idea but would see it as a necessity IF our government provided proof that oil companies couldnt cash in on the whole situation. I would also require that our governments invest HEAVILY in alternative fuel sources and technology. I would also require that we keep a tally of the fuel we take from the Iraqi's and come up with a compensation package when we've weened ourselfs of the oil drip.

The compensation package should include gratis access to our oil alternative technology including rights to their designs and enough units to stabilize their economy when we leave.

Call me a complete idealist but there is huge calamity bearing down at us, our politicans can see it and are acting to prevent it but they are also capitalizing on it and stripping us of our way of life any way. This could be handled MUCH better than the lying bastards in Westminster, Canberra and Washington D.C currently are.

[edit on 3/10/05 by subz]

Originally posted by Gools
Good Op/Ed subz.

It's along the same line of thinking as this old thread of mine: Where's the Conspiracy?

The PTB know what the score is and are preparing as best they can.

Thanks Gools

Your article was much more scientific and sobering than mine It really is our affection for advanced technology that will see us all die.

Its so ironic that we invent things with the goal of making our lives better, and at the same time bring total extinction upon all of us in the process. Typical humanity

Originally posted by Seekerof
Is it governmental half-truths they tell us or is that our History books are telling half-truths?
The reason I ask is because you assert that the reason the French and Russian Revolutions arose because people were starving.
Is this a half-truth?
Is it the only reason that both occurred?
Having studied both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolutions, along with the American Revolution and the Springtime of Nations of 1848, among other smaller, non-violent revolutions, there were a number of causes for the French and Russian Revolutions taking place.

In the two that you refer to, food prices were a factor, one of many factors.

Of course you are 100% correct Seeker But if you condense the revolutions down you should be able to see that access to food is about as atomic a human prerequisite can get. If you have access to technology or even vast swathes of money but no access to food it really is all moot. There might be those that are content with their iPods and Ferraris but even those boneheads will start to feel hungry at some stage. Will they sit back idly and watch the upper-crusters literally feeding off our state and be contented enough to starve? Or will they rise up and revolt, even if there is no point in revolting?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Anyhow, I do understand the point you are making,

I can agree with some of it, but not all of it.

*rubs hands together* This is why I contribute to ATSNN

Originally posted by Seekerof
Just because food prices will increase due to oil prices rising [ie: transportation costs, shipping costs, packaging costs, etc.], this does not necessarily indicate that Revolution is in the air.

As I mentioned above, what could possibly pacify a nation that by and large has no access to food?

Originally posted by Seekerof
As indicated, revolution does not occur simply or only because of higher food prices, it occurs in addition or in combination to a number of other factors/causes. Even then, when combined, revolution is not guaranteed to occur, and if they combine to spark a revolution, there is no guarantee of such being successful.

Lets be clear, higher food prices as a result of oil price rises are not a few cents here and there we are talking many orders of magnitude increases in prices. If Katrina can add 38c onto the price of milk in Australia we are heading for a apocalyptic calamity when oil/barrel prices start nudging $90.

Again, what could possibly quell revolution in a starving country? A country ill equiped to fend for themselves or acustomed to such adversity?

I fully agree that a revolution would be fruitless, pardon the pun, but since when has human mob mentality been rational? The ensuing food riots of a revolution would not supplant our current governments in the slightest but they would bring about total anarchy.

Originally posted by Seekerof
As to the West buying time before the eventual crush of impending revolution, that may be a rational evaluation, but one I find a bit incredulous.

Do they have a choice? Could they of not made a move to secure our access to oil? Do we have laws currently that could supress a food-based riot?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Besides, subz, if politicians are not lying or telling half-truths, they are not doing what politicians are famous and notorious for doing.

Aint that the whole truth

Originally posted by subz
I thought that the causes of the French and Russian revolutions were common knowledge. I also thought that the link between fuel and food prices was also common knowledge. I also thought that the fact oil is a finite resource and the supply of which appears to be declining was also common knowledge.

I agree about the oil, but not about the revolutions. See Seekerof's comments.

That assumes that I have recognized prior leaders authourity to claim a true mandate in the past, which I havent. I dont think the system we currently has can truly provide a voice for the people. Proportional representation would be a much truer form of government and one that avoids claims from some one who 15% of the country supports claiming to speak or reflect 100% of us.

Now you sound like the Subz I thought I sort of knew. When you speak of proportional representation, just what do you mean by that? I'm a little hard pressed to come up with an alternative to the way we go about electing someone. We'll never get everyone to vote--even though I personally think it is a solem obligation & duty of every citizen to do so. As far as I'm concerned, people who don't vote deserve no say in the way things are run, and no complaints about those things if they don't like them.

Even so, how does the fact whether or not they do speak for all of us change what I have said? You assume they are not capable of such cold blooded acts such as killing their own citizens. Well im sure you are familiar with Operation Northwoods which was proposed to your President Kennedy in the 60's. It was a Joint Chief's proposal to get the American airforce to shoot down a plane load of American college students flying from Florida to the Carribean and blaming it on the Cubans. They would then use this as a pretext for invading Cuba. The proposal has been released under the FOIA and shows that its an old idea and well within the realm of feasibilty.

I make so such assumptions, I know full well such recommendations have been presented in the past and likely will be presented again in the future.
However, I take it more-or-less as an article of faith that our president would never act upon such a recommendation. I understand why they are presented, since all alternatives should be examined and in the case you cited, the JCS would have been remiss in not doing so.

Also, psychologically what is the difference between authourizing a war in Iraq or Afghanistan where you know for sure there will be innocent casualties and deaths and ordering the killing of a couple of thousand of your own citizens if you think its serving the greater good? If I myself thought I'd be saving the lives of the entire 60,000,000 Britains by allowing 2,000 of them to die I would do it, wouldnt you?

When you present your argument in that fashion, I am in agreement with you about sacrificing a few for the good of the many, but that is really a moral question that many would find a repulsive idea. However, I believe their is a great deal of difference in knowing some number of innocent Afgan citizens will likely die in a war and premediatatively ordering their murder. You know as well as I that our countries bend over backwards to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians, even to the point of sometimes jeopardizing our own troops by doing so.

Im not even sure I think securing our access to oil fields is a bad idea in a selfish way. We do need that oil and we're screwed with out it.

Push comes to shove I'm reasonably certain our countries would do just that. Kind of makes us like the New Orleans looters doesn't it.

Its the deceit and the clandestine manner in which our governments are conducting themselves which infuriates me. They are not stopping at securing our access to the worlds oil reserves, they are lining their own pockets in the process and removing our civil rights because it makes their lives easier.

Now we get to the nasty little question of intentions and here is where I diverge from you. I don't think we went into either Afganistan or Iraq because of oil. Let me dismiss Afganistan outright, since to the best of my knowledge they don't have any. In the case of Iraq though, I'm sure the oil was one of the considerations for throwing Saddam Hussein out. I don't think it was the over riding consideration, just one of many. I think Bush, Blair and others were convinced he needed to go, and I agree with them, for a lot of reasons. It's a shame everything got tied to WMD's the way they did. I think that was just something they knew would fly with the public so they used it. And, finally, I don't for one minute think either Bush or Blair set out on this endeavor to line their pockets.

If a sober faced President or Prime Minister came on national tv and announced that we are running out of oil and our society is on the brink of total collapse if we do not acquire our own access to the Worlds reserves I would of backed it 100%.

So would I have.

If it necessitated the use of our military to invade Iraq to secure our access to it then I wouldnt really like the idea but would see it as a necessity IF our government provided proof that oil companies couldnt cash in on the whole situation.

It is in the nature of commerce in general and capitalism in particular that some groups and individuals are going to make a profit from providing what we want and I don't have a problem with that as long as those profits are not excessive.

.....The compensation package should include gratis access to our oil alternative technology including rights to their designs and enough units to stabilize their economy when we leave.

Concur 100% with your concept here. Guess that makes us humane theives.

Call me a complete idealist but there is huge calamity bearing down at us, our politicans can see it and are acting to prevent it but they are also capitalizing on it and stripping us of our way of life any way. This could be handled MUCH better than the lying bastards in Westminster, Canberra and Washington D.C currently are.

I agree with you in part here and disagree in part. I too believe our leaders know oil is going to run out in the not so distant future, but I don't think any concrete steps to secure oil reserves have been taken and I don't see anything but inconvenience to us in the steps thay have taken to protect us. I agree the whole thing could have been handled more astutely had they really tried.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by QuietSoul

You're either incredibly dense, or you honestly don't understand what an Op/Ed is.

Opinion/Education .. op/ed.. get it?

It's meant to be biased.. it's an editorial opinion piece..

Wow.. some people.

Yes this is an opinion.. I don't think it has anything to do with "education", it is merely "opinion." Education is based on "facts", not " biased opinions," at least that's the way it used to be....

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I agree about the oil, but not about the revolutions. See Seekerof's comments.

Food is second only to water as the basic need of humans. There might of been class divisions and wealth inequality in France which contributed to the French revolutions but the real clincher was the poor's inability to access food. If they all had food in their stomachs there would of been less chance of a revolution taking place. Im not saying that food was the sole reason that revolutions took place but it was the key fact in them starting.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Now you sound like the Subz I thought I sort of knew. When you speak of proportional representation, just what do you mean by that?

Please dont take my disagreement with you as anything more than what it is, a disagreement. Theres no need to doubt that we both get along here

Basically proportional representation (PR) is a system whereby each political party recieves the full representation of its votes in government. Lets say in the case of the 2005 British general election that Labour won 35% of the votes, under PR it would have 35% of the deciding vote in any discussion or proposal in parliament. The Lliberal Democrat party would have 20% of the deciding vote and the Conservatives would have 30% of the deciding vote.

That way every voters voice is heard rather than having 35% of the voters dictating to the rest of us how the country will progress and move forward. That is a democratically selected dictatorship IMHO and doesnt gel with my concept of a representative government.

The reason I voted for the Liberal Democrats in the 2005 British General Election was not because I trust Charles Kennedy to adhere to my liberal ideals, it was because he is commited to instituting PR in the British parliament. There is already a PR system in both the Welsh and Scottish assemblies, that we should have it on a national level is basically self evident. It works and is vastly more atune to the citizens true wishes than the current joke we call democracy.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I'm a little hard pressed to come up with an alternative to the way we go about electing someone.

The process of election wouldnt change, just how power is divided up based on the election results. We wouldnt have a minority leading the country by the nose for 5 years.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
We'll never get everyone to vote--even though I personally think it is a solem obligation & duty of every citizen to do so.

I completely agree. Again, im not proposing we change that.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
As far as I'm concerned, people who don't vote deserve no say in the way things are run, and no complaints about those things if they don't like them.

Here, here!

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I make so such assumptions, I know full well such recommendations have been presented in the past and likely will be presented again in the future.
However, I take it more-or-less as an article of faith that our president would never act upon such a recommendation. I understand why they are presented, since all alternatives should be examined and in the case you cited, the JCS would have been remiss in not doing so.

So you admit that its a matter of duty that such proposals be considered by our leaders but reject the notion that they might take up the idea if the stakes were high enough? You have far too much faith in politicians. They are human afterall.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
When you present your argument in that fashion, I am in agreement with you about sacrificing a few for the good of the many, but that is really a moral question that many would find a repulsive idea. However, I believe their is a great deal of difference in knowing some number of innocent Afgan citizens will likely die in a war and premediatatively ordering their murder.

When you start a war in an urban setting it is guranteed that innocent people will die. However you might want to hope for, or avoid the chance of, collateral damage it will inevitably occur. When they started that war they knew this and it was premeditated.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
You know as well as I that our countries bend over backwards to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians, even to the point of sometimes jeopardizing our own troops by doing so.

They try to appear to do this due to political necessity. If they thought we wouldnt notice they wouldnt bother. Foreigners cant vote, thats about the be all and end all of a politicians concerns.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Push comes to shove I'm reasonably certain our countries would do just that. Kind of makes us like the New Orleans looters doesn't it.

We, too, are human remember

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Now we get to the nasty little question of intentions and here is where I diverge from you. I don't think we went into either Afganistan or Iraq because of oil.

So you do believe that Afghanistan and Iraq were the paramount threat to the West via their activities with terrorists? Also the fact that they were fossil fuel treasure troves was a happy coincidence and side effect of us having occupied them? Did Afghanistan and Iraq trump the threat posed to us by a newly nuclear equiped North Korea?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Let me dismiss Afganistan outright, since to the best of my knowledge they don't have any.

I wish I could edit out the "oil" from that sentence and replace it with "fossil fuels". The time frame for editing expired before I noticed my mistake. Afghanistan is brimming with natural gas and is a vital staging post for attacking Iran in future. Which is technically granting access to Iranian oil in subsequent invasions that will undoubtedly occur.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
And, finally, I don't for one minute think either Bush or Blair set out on this endeavor to line their pockets.

Why do you believe that? What makes you have so much faith in these politicians? Is it because you need to hang on to the premise that our elected leaders act in our best interest? I wish they would as well but wishing does not make it so, show me a truly altruistic politician of the last 20 years.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
It is in the nature of commerce in general and capitalism in particular that some groups and individuals are going to make a profit from providing what we want and I don't have a problem with that as long as those profits are not excessive.

I dont agree. In times of national crisis no one should be profitting out of it. That profit directly exacerbates the crisis and prolongs its damage all for the sake of increasing the bank balance of a few. That is capitalism at its finest but it acts against the good of the nation. When capitalism acts against the good of the nation it should be suspended. That might sound alot like socialism but its true. Capitalism is not a religion and its not holy dogma, it is an economic system open to manipulation from all sides. If we push it into benefiting the country ahead of indidual corporates, then so be it.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Concur 100% with your concept here. Guess that makes us humane theives.

Lesser of two evils im afraid. Who said liberals cant be pragmatic The deciding factor in my decision that I described to this calamity we are facing hinges on the fact that the West is about the only entity with any chance of developing sustainable energy sources. To fuel the change over and advances we need oil. If that means that other countries have to be trampled on until we acquire such technology then so be it. If we share that technology with the entire World then the greater good is being served and thats about the gist of it.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I agree with you in part here and disagree in part. I too believe our leaders know oil is going to run out in the not so distant future, but I don't think any concrete steps to secure oil reserves have been taken and I don't see anything but inconvenience to us in the steps thay have taken to protect us. I agree the whole thing could have been handled more astutely had they really tried.

I admire your faith but not the receipient of it. You place a dangerous amount of faith into politicians and I dont know why. Politicians are renowned across the ages and World as being liars, cheats, thieves and bigots. Why should these two boneheads be exempt from the rest? Because you hope and pray they are not or because if they are you have to question the bedrock of our society?

[edit on 4/10/05 by subz]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I agree about the oil, but not about the revolutions. See Seekerof's comments.

Food is second only to water as the basic need of humans. There might of been class divisions and wealth inequality in France which contributed to the French revolutions but the real clincher was the poor's inability to access food that caused the revolution to take place. If they all had food in their stomachs there would of been less chance of a revolution taking place. Im not saying that food was the sole reason that revolutions took place but it was the key fact in them starting.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Now you sound like the Subz I thought I sort of knew. When you speak of proportional representation, just what do you mean by that?

Please dont take my disagreement with you as anything more than what it is, a disagreement. Theres no need to doubt that we both get along here

Basically proportional representation (PR) is a system whereby each political party recieves the full representation of its votes in government. Lets say in the case of the 2005 British general election that Labour won 35% of the votes, under PR it would have 35% of the deciding vote in any discussion or proposal in parliament. The Lliberal Democrat party would have 20% of the deciding vote and the Conservatives would have 30% of the deciding vote.

That way every voters voice is heard rather than having 35% of the voters dictating to the rest of us how the country will progress and move forward. That is a democratically selected dictatorship IMHO and doesnt gel with my concept of a representative government.

The reason I voted for the Liberal Democrats in the 2005 British General Election was not because I trust Charles Clarke to adhere to my liberal ideals, it was because he is commited to instituting PR in the British parliament. There is already a PR system in both the Welsh and Scottish assemblies, that we should have it on a national level is basically self evident. It works and is vastly more atune to the citizens true wishes than the current joke we call democracy.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I'm a little hard pressed to come up with an alternative to the way we go about electing someone.

The process of election wouldnt change, just how power is divided up based on the election results. We wouldnt have a minority leading the country by the nose for 5 years.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
We'll never get everyone to vote--even though I personally think it is a solem obligation & duty of every citizen to do so.

I completely agree. Again, im not proposing we change that.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
As far as I'm concerned, people who don't vote deserve no say in the way things are run, and no complaints about those things if they don't like them.

Here, here!

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I make so such assumptions, I know full well such recommendations have been presented in the past and likely will be presented again in the future.
However, I take it more-or-less as an article of faith that our president would never act upon such a recommendation. I understand why they are presented, since all alternatives should be examined and in the case you cited, the JCS would have been remiss in not doing so.

So you admit that its a matter of duty that such proposals be considered by our leaders but reject the notion that they might take up the idea if the stakes were high enough? You have far too much faith in politicians. They are human afterall.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
When you present your argument in that fashion, I am in agreement with you about sacrificing a few for the good of the many, but that is really a moral question that many would find a repulsive idea. However, I believe their is a great deal of difference in knowing some number of innocent Afgan citizens will likely die in a war and premediatatively ordering their murder.

When you start a war in an urban setting it is guranteed that innocent people will die. However you might want to hope for, or avoid the chance of, collateral damage it will inevitably occur. When they started that war they knew this and it was premeditated.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
You know as well as I that our countries bend over backwards to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians, even to the point of sometimes jeopardizing our own troops by doing so.

They try to appear to do this due to political necessity. If they thought we wouldnt notice they wouldnt bother. Foreigners cant vote, thats about the be all and end all of a politicians concerns.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Push comes to shove I'm reasonably certain our countries would do just that. Kind of makes us like the New Orleans looters doesn't it.

We, too, are human remember

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Now we get to the nasty little question of intentions and here is where I diverge from you. I don't think we went into either Afganistan or Iraq because of oil.

So you do believe that Afghanistan and Iraq were the paramount threat to the West via their activities with terrorists? Also the fact that they were fossil fuel treasure troves was a happy coincidence and side effect of us having occupied them? Did Afghanistan and Iraq trump the threat posed to us by a newly nuclear equiped North Korea?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Let me dismiss Afganistan outright, since to the best of my knowledge they don't have any.

I wish I could edit out the "oil" from that sentence and replace it with "fossil fuels". The time frame for editing expired before I noticed my mistake. Afghanistan is brimming with natural gas and is a vital staging post for attacking Iran in future. Which is technically granting access to Iranian oil in subsequent invasions that will undoubtedly occur.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
And, finally, I don't for one minute think either Bush or Blair set out on this endeavor to line their pockets.

Why do you believe that? What makes you have so much faith in these politicians? Is it because you need to hang on to the premise that our elected leaders act in our best interest? I wish they would as well but wishing does not make it so, show me a truly altruistic politician of the last 20 years.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
It is in the nature of commerce in general and capitalism in particular that some groups and individuals are going to make a profit from providing what we want and I don't have a problem with that as long as those profits are not excessive.

I dont agree. In times of national crisis no one should be profitting out of it. That profit directly exacerbates the crisis and prolongs its damage all for the sake of increasing the bank balance of a few. That is capitalism at its finest but it acts against the good of the nation. When capitalism acts against the good of the nation it should be suspended. That might sound alot like socialism but its true. Capitalism is not a religion and its not holy dogma, it is an economic system open to manipulation from all sides. If we push it into benefiting the country ahead of indidual corporates, then so be it.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Concur 100% with your concept here. Guess that makes us humane theives.

Lesser of two evils im afraid. Who said liberals cant be pragmatic The deciding factor in my decision that I described to this calamity we are facing hinges on the fact that the West is about the only entity with any chance of developing sustainable energy sources. To fuel the change over and advances we need oil. If that means that other countries have to be trampled on until we acquire such technology then so be it. If we share that technology with the entire World then the greater good is being served and thats about the gist of it.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I agree with you in part here and disagree in part. I too believe our leaders know oil is going to run out in the not so distant future, but I don't think any concrete steps to secure oil reserves have been taken and I don't see anything but inconvenience to us in the steps thay have taken to protect us. I agree the whole thing could have been handled more astutely had they really tried.

I admire your faith but not the receipient of it. You place a dangerous amount of faith into politicians and I dont know why. Politicians are renowned across the ages and World as being liars, cheats, thieves and bigots. Why should these two boneheads be exempt from the rest? Because you hope and pray they are or because if they are not you have to question the bedrock of our society?

[edit on 4/10/05 by subz]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Yes this is an opinion.. I don't think it has anything to do with "education", it is merely "opinion." Education is based on "facts", not " biased opinions," at least that's the way it used to be....

Facts?

A lot of education is based upon the Governments opinion, only key subjects like maths are facts. Things like science are just theories, as is history and many other subjects...

Originally posted by subz

Basically proportional representation (PR) is a system whereby each political party recieves the full representation of its votes in government. Lets say in the case of the 2005 British general election that Labour won 35% of the votes, under PR it would have 35% of the deciding vote in any discussion or proposal in parliament. The Lliberal Democrat party would have 20% of the deciding vote and the Conservatives would have 30% of the deciding vote.

I wholeheartedly concur with that opinion. Even though I've seen a lot of deadlocked governments around the world because of proportional representation, I still believe it to be a better system than we currently have. I thought that was what you meant, but I was not sure, so I had to ask.

So you admit that its a matter of duty that such proposals be considered by our leaders but reject the notion that they might take up the idea if the stakes were high enough? You have far too much faith in politicians. They are human afterall.

No, not exactly. I don't completely reject the idea of them taking up some recommendations of that nature if the stakes were high enough. I just don't think the stakes have ever gotten that high yet.

When you start a war in an urban setting it is guranteed that innocent people will die. However you might want to hope for, or avoid the chance of, collateral damage it will inevitably occur. When they started that war they knew this and it was premeditated.

Well, the war was certainly premeditated. That's one of the reasons going to war is such a tough damn decision. You know people are going to die and they won't all be combatants or bad guys--especially in an urban setting. However, deciding to go to war anyway is still not the same as just having people killed. That distinction is one of the reasons we have first & second degree murder. I know that's a pretty fine moral distinction, but it's one I and, I think, most other folks can live with--indeed even insist on that distinction being made before actions are taken.

They try to appear to do this due to political necessity. If they thought we wouldnt notice they wouldnt bother. Foreigners cant vote, thats about the be all and end all of a politicians concerns.

You're darn right its a political necessity and I think most people would want the buggars thrown out of office if they didn't try to minimize the loss of human lives. It's one thing to impose your national will upon another country and quite another to indiscriminatly slaughter that country's citizens. I think the world pretty much agrees on that point, that's why the Geneva conventions were drafted and adopted by all civilized nations.

We, too, are human remember

Yeah, the veneer of civilization is pretty damn thin.

So you do believe that Afghanistan and Iraq were the paramount threat to the West via their activities with terrorists? Also the fact that they were fossil fuel treasure troves was a happy coincidence and side effect of us having occupied them? Did Afghanistan and Iraq trump the threat posed to us by a newly nuclear equiped North Korea?

No, I don't believe that. In the case of Afganistan, I think our actions were an absolute political necessity in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The country itself was certainly no threat to us, but the activities of the terrorists were and Afganistan refused to hand them over; therefore, we went in to try to get them. I don't really think the Taliban thought we were serious about it--to bad for them.

Iraq was/is a completely different kettle of fish. I don't think the Iraqi government was an immediate threat to us, but I do think it would have become one very rapidly had sanctions been lifted and I think it would have been a more serious threat than North Korea because of the oil. I profoundly regret that our leaders felt it necessary to use the WMD card to justify our actions. There were plenty of reasons to throw Saddam Hussein and his government out and I wish they had been emphasized more. I also don't think enough preparation and planning were done in advance of action and this has caused me consternation and a feeling of shame. There was no reason the Iraqi action could not have waited another year or so or even been avoided altogether. I felt at the time that either Syria or Iran was a more appropriate target and I still feel that way.

I don't think we went into either country to exploit their natural resources. As you say, it is a happy coincidence. Having a stable, friendly government is power in such a sensitive area of the world would clearly be in both our country's interests. I attribute somewhat higher morals to our countries than you seem wont to do. We have never yet exploited a conquered country, in fact, history will probably show that one of the best ways for a country to get ahead in the world ( in the twentieth centruy anyway) is to either declare war on the U.S., or at least piss the country off severely enough that they come and take over for awhile. Further, we have sat on perhaps the greatest potential weapon in history--our massive food surpluses--and never once used that weapon, or even threatened to do so. No, the U.S. really does wear a white hat. We are just arrogant as hell as a country and tend to believe our way is the best way and that really galls a lot of other countries.

Why do you believe that? What makes you have so much faith in these politicians? Is it because you need to hang on to the premise that our elected leaders act in our best interest? I wish they would as well but wishing does not make it so, show me a truly altruistic politician of the last 20 years.

Show me a truely altruistic person period--other that perhaps Mother Theresa--and I would be shocked. Subz I firmly believe that the weight of the office bears on Bush & Blair (or anyone else that gets in there) and makes them a better person than they ever thought they could be. This is not to say either are lilly white angels, because I don't think that for one second. I do however, think they act in what they perceive to be the best intrest of the nation--not necessarily the best intrest of the people who voted for them.

I dont agree. In times of national crisis no one should be profitting out of it. That profit directly exacerbates the crisis and prolongs its damage all for the sake of increasing the bank balance of a few. That is capitalism at its finest but it acts against the good of the nation. When capitalism acts against the good of the nation it should be suspended. That might sound alot like socialism but its true. Capitalism is not a religion and its not holy dogma, it is an economic system open to manipulation from all sides. If we push it into benefiting the country ahead of indidual corporates, then so be it.

We'll just have to disagree on that point. I don't think the concept of profit and the good of the nation are incompatible at all. Greed is probably the single most powerful motivator of mankind and always has been, that's why we have so many laws to keep it in check. I'm not saying the government couldn't create a non-profit corporation/organization to handle some situations where the risk is great, or conversely, negligible, and the
temptation of personal gain is either excessively high or the likelihood is near non-existant, but short of those two extremes, such is not needed or, in my opinion, desireable.

Lesser of two evils im afraid. Who said liberals cant be pragmatic

The deciding factor in my decision that I described to this calamity we are facing hinges on the fact that the West is about the only entity with any chance of developing sustainable energy sources. To fuel the change over and advances we need oil. If that means that other countries have to be trampled on until we acquire such technology then so be it. If we share that technology with the entire World then the greater good is being served and thats about the gist of it.

That sounds very much like the end justifies the means, but in this particular case I agree with you.

I admire your faith but not the receipient of it. You place a dangerous amount of faith into politicians and I dont know why. Politicians are renowned across the ages and World as being liars, cheats, thieves and bigots. Why should these two boneheads be exempt from the rest? Because you hope and pray they are not or because if they are you have to question the bedrock of our society?

I don't think our leaders are exempt from temptation, that's why we have a government of checks and balances, to keep everyone honest--or at least try to. If I didn't think the system essentially worked I would have to question the sanity of both our forbearers and our current population. Or, as you so eloquently put it, the bedrock of our society. Sometimes I come dangerously near that point, but I haven't crossed that imaginary line in my mind yet and fervently hope I never have to.

Damn I love to argue with you. Ok, Ok, discuss the issues.

You dearly love to stir the pot--usually vigorously.

[edit on 4-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 4-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by QuietSoul

You're either incredibly dense, or you honestly don't understand what an Op/Ed is.

Opinion/Education .. op/ed.. get it?

It's meant to be biased.. it's an editorial opinion piece..

Wow.. some people.

Yes this is an opinion.. I don't think it has anything to do with "education", it is merely "opinion." Education is based on "facts", not " biased opinions," at least that's the way it used to be....

"at least that's the way it used to be".....

exactly. sort of. the education machine has always been used to indoctrinate people into certain thought mazes. in the older days, the speed of the media enviroments required that 'facts' actually be pretty close to 'factual'. in our post-modern existence, none of that matters anymore(unless you are involved in hardware critical applications), and the 'truth' is a flexible as a swami in a blender.

ed is short for editorial, not education. opinion/editorial=op/ed (not aiming this at you, muadib, rather to help generally clear up this bottleneck. 'education' was brought into the conversation by mistake.)

After perusing all of the replies to your op/ed I'm really afraid I may not be educated enough to provide information on this site.. As a "newbee", so to speak, I think I should go and take a journal course in college and write for a newspaper in order to reflect my thoughts and opinions on this site... I joined this site in order to gather knowledge of subjects, but I now see I am just an average kind of girl who is frightened by her lack of writing skills to even attempt to post an opinion...But that's just me. Please feel free to bash me.

Thank you,
Starr

Originally posted by starr
After perusing all of the replies to your op/ed I'm really afraid I may not be educated enough to provide information on this site..

Hey, you! Everyone's opinion is different and equally valued on this site - there's no "n00b" discrimination here. No one knows everything about everything, hence we're all here to pool our knowledge and to learn from each other as we go. So don't be afraid to speak up, talk it out, soak it all in, and most importantly, contribute whatever you can.

Starr, I wouldnt worry about that too much. No body else does

Say what you think and your opinion will shine through regardless of the way its presented. Dont shoot yourself down, if you dont believe in yourself no one else will.

Starr, that little post you made (essentially bashing yourself) was good writing. Just continue putting your thoughts forward like that and you'll be just fine.

newspapers are so 1991.
we are all journalists, now. it's the amazing blogosphere, where for every truth, there is an opposite truth.
enjoy. share!

we're all spies, now, too, incidentally(unhappy default).
enjoy! share!