Forum menu
History tends to say that every recession/depression was followed by a war, is this part of a larger financial circle, can we blame the bankers for the killing fields too?
Yes.
Yes.
[img] 
[/img]
Sorry I gave that up for lent 😳
can we blame the bankers for the killing fields too?
I think we should drop the bankers onto Gadaffi's military machine so they can **** that up too, kill two birds with one stone so to speak.
Petrol's suddenly very expensive. Bomb someone. 🙄
To be fair, Gaddafi is poised to slaughter a lot of Libyans "Drunk all the time and taking drugs given to them by Al Qaeda". Seems the lesser of two evils to try and stop him.
And, for once, the UK is involved in a UN sanctioned action and not on some mad American neo-con military expedition.
To be fair, Gaddafi is poised to slaughter a lot of Libyans .
So we are now claiming that Gaddafi was merely "poised" to slaughter a lot of Libyans ? That seems to be a very substantial departure from previous claims. What has he been doing for the last month then ?
"Drunk all the time and taking drugs given to them by Al Qaeda" hey it works here!
What has he been doing for the last month then ?
hard to say but now it might get worse or stop or not change much unless we bomb the shit out of the country. It will help distract us from what our friends in bahrain are doing wth those nice Saudi troops as we just get behind our brave boys who are galantly pressing buttons from thousands of miles away. FFS ernie keep up 🙄
Did the UK Parliament get to vote on this* before it all kicked off or did I miss that ?
* sending the planes/missiles in
No. I believe they get a vote next week.
Ah, a bit like retrospective planning permission then 🙄
Exactly!
Well, almost. You see with retrospective planning permission, the structure can always be pulled down if permission is refused. Bit tricky to un-bomb a country.
No.
I masterfully 😉 debunked this argument over here: http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/who-makes-money-from-the-uk-being-at-war#post-2394534 And the whole thing is a Broken Window Parable on a massive scale.
Unless of course the argument is that the attempt to stimulate the world economy by bombing it into submission is being executed not by economists but by fools. Then I'd agree.
War is big business for sure, but it's governments who spend the money, your money. As the government ran out years ago and have been borrowing like mad, it's your debt they are running up!
How is a war actually going to help our economy?
I used to work for a major British military hardware manufacturer in the 80's. The business was eventually sold to a German company and the factory I worked in closed, production was shifted to the Far East and the old site became a housing estate.
Another major British owned company and a massive regional employer was later sold off. The new owner, an American company, then broke it up. The old sites are now a retail and business parks. One or two bits remain under the new American company.
If a war means increased sales of military hardware, our economy won't benefit a great deal, but our tax burden will certainly increase significantly!
While it seems inhumane to stand by and watch innocent civilians being maimed and killed by their own military, this is not our business. We didn't butt in on numerous other genocides, so why this one? I'd say it's got a lot to do with the west's interest in oil, but not just Libya, all of the Middle East.
Libya does not produce a very large percentage of the Middle East's oil, but i think the West sees Gadaffi as a legitimate target to make an example of because he's a despot with a long track record. Getting rid of him would be a big plus and the American voters would love it. They haven't forgotten Lockerbie!
The underlying issue is the West's anxiety about the widespread burgeoning instability in the Middle East, so it feels it needs to assert it's authority.
By kicking "seven bell's" out of Gadaffi and Libya, it sends a message to the rest of the arab world about who's boss. As Libyan oil is not significant in the grand scheme of things, this makes the new conflict not too much of a direct risk to the health Western economies while still achieving the objective!
I can fully understand why the action is taking place, but it's not the innocent victims of the Gadaffi regime our western leaders are worried about, but I am sure that a few American military hardware suppliers [i]will[/i] be rubbing their hands together.
The underlying issue is the West's anxiety about the widespread burgeoning instability in the Middle East, so it feels it needs to assert it's authority.
Up to now, it's been mostly good news for the West: the people taking power have been not opposed to the West, not aligned with Chavez/Ahmadinajad/Kim axis or Al Qaeda franchises, not proposing any fundamental reorganisation of their economies that are likely to damage western interests etc. And maybe even a chance of economic transformation and increasing wealth full of people that want to buy the stuff we make...whatever that is.
[i]And, for once, the UK is involved in a UN sanctioned action and not on some mad American neo-con military expedition. [/i]
I take it your not fully up on how the UN works...
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1551173.ece
To quote [i]Withstanding last-minute U.S. pressure,[/i]
withstandingpresent participle of with·stand (Verb)
1. Remain undamaged or [b]unaffected by; resist[/b]: "designed to withstand winds of 100 mph".
2. Offer strong resistance or opposition to (someone or something).
http://www.google.com.au/dictionary?q=withstand&langpair=en|en&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zg-GTZreL5HsvQPngfW_CA&ved=0CCQQmwMoAA
Meaning - if the Indian vote at the UNSC had been swayed by the US and had been determinative of the outcome and each other member hadn't had a unilateral veto and the US was actually in the grips of neocons - then yes, you might have a point.