Username [Register?]: | Password [Lost Password?]: Save Password?
Bottom of Page
INTL v5.0 > Discussion Forums > The "Song A Day" Thread Forum > Oh man, the British have a new Prime Minister. > Viewing Thread
Also Here: 1 guest. Moderated by: D drahnier
Page: [ 1 2 ] [ Thread Views: 3724 | Total Posts: 31 ]
Rate This Thread: Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
Actions Menu: | Lock | Unlock | Sticky | Unsticky | Hide | Unhide | Delete Thread


Ballkicks: (+0 / -0)
Posts: 0 (0)
Reg. Date: Dec 1969
Location:
Gender: Unspecified
(Originally posted on: 06-27-07 10:12:13 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

AND HE'S NOT ENGLISH!

Tony Blair tendered his resignation to the Queen (lol) today. After that, Gordon Brown, as head of the Labour Party, was asked by her to form a government. No word yet on who will be Minister of Silly Walks.

My first instinct is, good riddance! He was an enabler to the Bush Administration. Iraq, torture, etc. He gave Bush cover. Imagine a British Prime Minister standing up in front of Downing Street and saying, "We cannot be a part of these ill-advised adventures and follies. Even sand niggers have feelings too." It would have ended this charade of the "Coalition of the Willing." We might not have Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and god knows what else. And, of course, we all remember Israel's carpet bombing of Lebanon last year, when Blair and Bush were perfectly happy to let Israel destroy Beiruit over the kidnapping of a few Israeli soldiers.

The counter arguement, of course, is that by being an ally, Blair was able to temper Bush's more insane and fascist instincts. But, where's the evidence? We torture. We are in Iraq. We haven't done anything about global warming. Where's the evidence that Blair was anything other than an abused spouse?

My second instinct is, I'm sorry to see him go. He seemed like a good guy. He wasn't as nasty or reprehensible as the occupants of our White House. He saved Sierra Leonne from itself. He seemed to genuinely believe that a British Prime Minister allied to America would be a force for good. He was big on African debt relief and on global warming, so he's no where near as bad as the right wing in America.

But, quite frankly, these are all trivialities. He was a part of an ill-thought out, poorly-executed war based on half-truths and distortions. He failed to stand up on even the most elementary issues like torture and the JewZionist bombing of Lebanon.

I can't say I'll miss him. Gordon Brown, hopefully, will be better.
This reply was last edited on 07-09-07 12:20:41 AM by etymxris.
asthetik
I SHOULD READ THE HALL OF REJECTS MORE OFTEN!

making jabs at each other is what the internet is for you fucking idiots. oh, and for stealing things.

Ballkicks: (+333 / -161)
Posts: 3016 (0.449)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 1 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-27-07 11:14:53 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
My first instinct is, good riddance! He was an enabler to the Bush Administration. Iraq, torture, etc.


he also led britain into kosovo, brokered peace in northern ireland, and oversaw an era of prosperous growth- he laid much of the political framework for the benevolent free-market ideal that will likely dominate british politics for the next decade. for those reasons i would be inclined to belive that he had the best of intentions by supporting the american invasion of iraq- he probably was acting on flawed intelligence provided by the US, but hes stood behind himself and I can respect him for that. furthermore, for everyones bitching about how fucked the UK, a lot of progress has been made and things continue to improve.

as for gordon brown, i think he'll do well as long as he just tries to be himself, rather than trying to turn himself into a tony blair-esque political confidence man.
wir h÷ren ein singen im raum...
wir jagen die monotomie...
wir machen aus stunden ein jahr
und mondschein aus unserem haar
wir fliegen so weit wie noch nie
Mr Excitable
INTL Premium Member
My girlfriend is the Michelin Man

Ballkicks: (+514 / -60)
Posts: 3218 (0.493)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 2 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-27-07 11:30:02 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

he would of been one of the greatest leaders of the 21st century if he had not followed Bush into Iraq. And you can tell by his interviews in the past 2 weeks has hinted that he is some bitter he listened to W
Tackle 'em all. Let the referee sort it out later.
D
Administrator

i didn't have the strength to get it all the way off

Ballkicks: (+1950 / -91)
Posts: 18505 (2.71)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 3 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 02:32:17 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I've watched him in the British House of Commons, and he was awesome. Everyone attacked him non-stop with their arguments and he calmly showed everyone how they were wrong. Good stuff. The British House of Commons is so entertaining, I wish I had like a programming schedule or something.
Pertti Susilainen
Head Priest

mr. sukkit

Ballkicks: (+924 / -57)
Posts: 7104 (1.083)
Reg. Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mayrit
Gender: Male
Reply 4 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 08:13:18 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I don't know, man, a Labourist who is not really a Labourist... Not a fan, myself.
đonne onwŠcne­ eft wineleas guma, gesih­ him biforan fealwe wegas, ba■ian brimfuglas, brŠdan fe■ra, hreosan hrim ond snaw hagle gemenged. Ůonne beo­ ■y hefigran heortan benne, sare Šfter swŠsne. Sorg bi­ geniwad ■onne maga gemynd mod geondhweorfe­, grete­ gliwstafum, georne geondsceawa­ secga geseldan; swimma­ oft on weg. Fleotendra fer­ no ■Šr fela bringe­ cu­ra cwidegiedda.
The Wanderer, l. 45-55a


Ballkicks: (+0 / -0)
Posts: 0 (0)
Reg. Date: Dec 1969
Location:
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 5 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 08:49:29 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Sukkit:
I don't know, man, a Labourist who is not really a Labourist... Not a fan, myself.

I bet you're not a fan, Spaniard.

Go back to electing Prime Ministers who capitulate to terrorists.

Quote:
I've watched him in the British House of Commons, and he was awesome. Everyone attacked him non-stop with their arguments and he calmly showed everyone how they were wrong. Good stuff. The British House of Commons is so entertaining, I wish I had like a programming schedule or something.

Will the right honorable gentleman get the fuck out of my thread?

MAGUSMAGUSMAGUSMAGUS

Quote:
he probably was acting on flawed intelligence provided by the US, but hes stood behind himself and I can respect him for that.
lol
This reply was last edited on 07-08-07 09:40:52 PM by .
atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Reply 6 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 09:58:02 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Furthermore, it is so blatant that the UK wants to get the hell out of Iraq. They have 5,500 troops in Iraq.


British people are crying, bitching, and lobbying their government over 5,500 people in Iraq? That is nothing. The United States has more people than that still stationed in Germany.

WTf is wrong with Europeans now days? Ever since WW2, people in Europe have had so little to bitch about that they have to find new, petty things to complain of. In a single battle during the Napoleonic age, literally tens of thousands of people on one side could be dead and the rest of the nation would still be wholeheartedly behind their "sacrifice" for the greater glory of the state. Are people now days just too pussy to do something greater than find new ways to more fully dilute themselves in petty selfishness?

I really can't say much though, it's getting more and more like that in America every day with the rise of special interests groups, minority "special-righters", and socialism.

Quote:
but he didn't want to do the work afterwards.


Wait, you mean British people didn't want to do anything afterwards? And because they didn't, he wasn't allowed to. I don't know where people get off thinking that world leaders get to have the responsibility for all of the negative results of their actions while society in general can take credit for the positive results.

Tony Blair got into Iraq because the British populace was for the war too. If there had been an overwhelmingly negative opinion on getting into the war, he probably would not have. The same thing happened here in America, btw; people were for the war at an astonishing 79% approval rate. Then, to everyone's apparent chargin, it tapered off when it became obvious (why wasn't it when it started?) that this would be far longer than the 6 weeks required to oust the Baath party.
This reply was last edited on 06-28-07 10:07:42 AM by atlas sighed (at me).
Snowy
INTL Premium Member

i always try to make a statement with my fashion...thats why today i wore a crop top with a pic of richard nixon captioned: growl at sweat

Ballkicks: (+899 / -313)
Posts: 5399 (0.937)
Reg. Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodes
Gender: Female
Reply 7 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 10:27:55 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

The new guy purses his lips like he's gumming dickgruel and posseesses the vealy milkfed complexion of a political cemetery mink.



Drifting along with my swords out flying
D
Administrator

i didn't have the strength to get it all the way off

Ballkicks: (+1950 / -91)
Posts: 18505 (2.71)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 8 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 11:12:33 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Will the right honorable gentleman get the fuck out of my thread?

Wtf is your problem? You made a thread about Tony Blair and I made a comment about him.d
atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Reply 9 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 11:21:14 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Snowqueene:
The new guy purses his lips like he's gumming dickgruel and posseesses the vealy milkfed complexion of a political cemetery mink.




Thx for the indepth political analysis
Snowy
INTL Premium Member

i always try to make a statement with my fashion...thats why today i wore a crop top with a pic of richard nixon captioned: growl at sweat

Ballkicks: (+899 / -313)
Posts: 5399 (0.937)
Reg. Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodes
Gender: Female
Reply 10 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 11:44:32 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

it's just another phase, just another false moon. i bet brown enjoys offal.

Drifting along with my swords out flying
frosty
This ban belongs to frosty now

I want Frosty to take my anal virginity!!1

Ballkicks: (+68 / -9)
Posts: 405 (0.072)
Reg. Date: Aug 2005
Location: Robin Hood Country
Gender: Male
Reply 11 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-28-07 04:33:13 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Gordon Brown is blind in his left eye and his real Christian name is James (although that's about all he has in common with the Godfather of soul).

Also, and amusingly given his reputation for stinginess and misery, his father's name is Ebineezer.

Personally, I can't see him fucking things up too badly, because while it's true that he's borderline autistic, he does have an awesome calculator of a brain.
Congratulations! You've just been tuned in by the Frosty Service Crew, INTL's no.1 casual firm...
Snowy
INTL Premium Member

i always try to make a statement with my fashion...thats why today i wore a crop top with a pic of richard nixon captioned: growl at sweat

Ballkicks: (+899 / -313)
Posts: 5399 (0.937)
Reg. Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodes
Gender: Female
Reply 12 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-29-07 01:40:19 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

http://plagueofangels.blogspot.com/2007/06/tony-blair-jun27.html


Here, download this songs as I have done and enjoy some famous political music from ole blighty.

The Chumbawumba song stinks, btw. I'd recommend Hefner and Jarvis as definite must-hears.

Drifting along with my swords out flying
asthetik
I SHOULD READ THE HALL OF REJECTS MORE OFTEN!

making jabs at each other is what the internet is for you fucking idiots. oh, and for stealing things.

Ballkicks: (+333 / -161)
Posts: 3016 (0.449)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 13 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-29-07 07:21:53 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:

How is it good to continue to defend something that is indefensible? The rationale for war is changing on a weekly basis. Weapons to democracy to fighting al-Qaeda to brining the Iraqis cute teddy bears.


as much of a bad decision it was to enter iraq, that error would be massively compounded by leaving now. we removed the regime, its our responsibility to leave iraq a stable and functioning government. while this will probably take 10 years, thats our problem for initiating the conflict. once the decision is made there is no turning back, so i'm not really terribly concerned with whatever politically expedient line is currently in use.

Quote:

In other words, they have nothing in Iraq. If Blair was really going to stand up, if he really believed Iraq was critical for world peace, maybe he could have sent more than a token force. There have been as many US deaths in Iraq as there are UK troops there.

So, count me unimpressed with Blair's dedication to Iraq. He wanted to play the big man on the world stage by bombing sand niggers, but he didn't want to do the work afterwards.


the us army reserve is almost twice the size of the regular british army. combined with the comparitive lack of enthusiasm among the british public for war and blair's past foreign policy record i don't really see what your point is.
wir h÷ren ein singen im raum...
wir jagen die monotomie...
wir machen aus stunden ein jahr
und mondschein aus unserem haar
wir fliegen so weit wie noch nie
Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5458 (0.799)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male
Reply 14 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-30-07 04:09:43 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
as much of a bad decision it was to enter iraq, that error would be massively compounded by leaving now. we removed the regime, its our responsibility to leave iraq a stable and functioning government. while this will probably take 10 years, thats our problem for initiating the conflict. once the decision is made there is no turning back, so i'm not really terribly concerned with whatever politically expedient line is currently in use.

Perhaps it would work out better for the country in the long-term if its internal conflict is left to its own devices? Is it any surprise that many of the countries that were forced (... in africa, the middle-east and parts of asia) have usually been considered unstable political, social and/or economic entities or continue to have constant conflict? I realize that tragedy and warfare would be a result of leaving the situation (the American Revolution, the American Civil War are used in America's case), but - IMHO - the country or countries that are left as a result would have a much stronger sense of identity and relationship with the eventual situation. You wouldn't be left with as easily abused government systems or large nations of people in constant civil war over who should have the greater say.

It's a little presumptuous and ill-fated to force Iraq to accept its current state. As far as I realize, you have three diverging nations in Iraq - the Sunnis, the Shi'a and the Kurds - who refuse so much to work together that they've encouraged and raised conflict with one another - or opted out altogether. It's reasons, like so, that people such as Saddam can stay in power. If left alone it's very possible that - like South Vietnam - Iraq will be absorbed into a "hostile" or "unpleasant" neighbor(s) - Iran, Syria, Turkey and/or Saudi Arabic. However, the same could be said with an American-backed Iraqi state.
This reply was last edited on 06-30-07 04:21:21 PM by Sunn O))).
atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Reply 15 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-30-07 04:40:00 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Sunneh:
Quote:
as much of a bad decision it was to enter iraq, that error would be massively compounded by leaving now. we removed the regime, its our responsibility to leave iraq a stable and functioning government. while this will probably take 10 years, thats our problem for initiating the conflict. once the decision is made there is no turning back, so i'm not really terribly concerned with whatever politically expedient line is currently in use.

Perhaps it would work out better for the country in the long-term if its internal conflict is left to its own devices? Is it any surprise that many of the countries that were forced (... in africa, the middle-east and parts of asia) have usually been considered unstable entities or continue to have constant conflict? I realize that tragedy and warfare would be a result of leaving the situation (the American Revolution, the American Civil War are used in America's case), but - IMHO - the country or countries that are left as a result would have a much stronger sense of identity and relationship with the eventual situation. You wouldn't be left with as easily abused government systems or nations of people in constant civil war over who should have the greater say.


That type of thinking towards Iraq would be great for American policy leaders if they could be sure Iran wouldn't capitalize on the situation and annex Shiite controlled regions of Iraq and then conquer the rest of the country through military force. If this future unfolded, American politicians (and, indeed, most Europeans as well as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey) would fear that Iran would become the dominant regional power without relative equal. Added to that would be the fact that with Iraq now firmly under Iran's flag, Tehran would control nearly 40% of the Middle East's known oil reserves. This, of course, would be unacceptable because there is no way in Hell America will ever bend over for anyone else over oil.

So, the current idea now is to build up Iraq's military and political base to the point where Americans feel it could perform the function Saddam was before itself; just now in a more friendly and amicable way.

Don't you get it Sunny? This is about protecting oil rights and trade agreements which America is counting on having when nations starting launching missiles as oil begins to dry up in 40 years! I mean, China has already gotten Iran, Europe has gotten Russia, and now America needs to muscle in on more than just Saudi Arabia if we are going to keep up! If you seriously think Bush won't be lauded as a geopolitical genius in 50 years, you are a moron because getting our foot in Iraq is the only way to ensure that they supply us with oil as our Saudi allies begine drying up.

It's like a T.V. survival-show called Earth!
Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5458 (0.799)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male
Reply 16 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-30-07 05:10:29 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Don't you get it Sunny?

Actually I do, though in this case I was speaking more as an idealist than a realist, and - as I alluded to in the previous post - not in the interests of America. If the issue was - as asthetik pointed out - to produce a stable country than that would be the course to take. Yet, your issue is equally apparent, and arguably more realistic. It's undeniable that the American government wants to retain a foothold in Iraq on an economic basis, whether that will go beyond what you predict is in-so-far to be seen. Needless to say I disagree with your long-term analysis. Relying solely or primarily on oil and oil-based rights will be a step backward, not a step forward. In my own prediction, ditch efforts will only continue to prolong the problem. It wont be so much a "Survivor" as it is a "Lord of the Flies"
atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Reply 17 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-30-07 05:36:47 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Relying solely or primarily on oil and oil-based rights will be a step backward, not a step forward.


Capitalism doesn't always look forward.

Until oil reaches the threshold where it is cheaper to produce and invest in other forms of energy, there is not going to be a substantial amount of R&D going into alternate fields and it will stay in high demand as a fuel source. This, as it happens, will be probably 40 to 50 years down the road.

Thus the emphasis on conservatism in the U.S. government; instead of going off on a tangent and rely totally on chance to provide our power needs, we are going to secure oil sites and partners to ensure that if we don't have a viable alternative, we can still have something to fall back upon while we attempt to find one. If Bush really just made up reasons to invade Iraq for this one purpose, I would have to be rather impressed with his forethought and ability to see ahead of the bleeding hearts which currently run this country.
asthetik
I SHOULD READ THE HALL OF REJECTS MORE OFTEN!

making jabs at each other is what the internet is for you fucking idiots. oh, and for stealing things.

Ballkicks: (+333 / -161)
Posts: 3016 (0.449)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 18 of 31 (Originally posted on: 06-30-07 08:00:43 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Capitalism doesn't always look forward.


evidently you don't have a very good understanding of how and why capitalism works. do you think the oil giants who command the energy sector today aren't interested in controlling the post-oil market as well?

Quote:
Until oil reaches the threshold where it is cheaper to produce and invest in other forms of energy, there is not going to be a substantial amount of R&D going into alternate fields and it will stay in high demand as a fuel source.


perhaps you haven't been paying attention in the past few years, but alternative energy is pretty much the hot investment sector at the moment. global investment in environmentally-friendly energy has more than doubled in the past couple years, from somewhere around 28 billion to around 70 billion at the moment. frankly i'm more concerned with idiot politicians endorsing dead-ends like ethanol and adopting a EU-style cap and trade emissions ceiling rather than doing the sensible thing and opting for a simpler carbon tax (there are a number of reasons the cap and trade is a bad idea, starting with its feasibility and ending with its potential to fuck with prices for a variety of goods)

Quote:

Thus the emphasis on conservatism in the U.S. government; instead of going off on a tangent and rely totally on chance to provide our power needs, we are going to secure oil sites and partners to ensure that if we don't have a viable alternative, we can still have something to fall back upon while we attempt to find one. If Bush really just made up reasons to invade Iraq for this one purpose, I would have to be rather impressed with his forethought and ability to see ahead of the bleeding hearts which currently run this country.


we've long moved past such blatant imperialism into more subtle and sophisticated methods to insure we get what we need.

as for the countless hacks plying any number of fantastic doomsday scenarios regarding peak-oil and the like, i would put about as much faith in them as the people who predicted world-wide Y2K carnage.
wir h÷ren ein singen im raum...
wir jagen die monotomie...
wir machen aus stunden ein jahr
und mondschein aus unserem haar
wir fliegen so weit wie noch nie
asthetik
I SHOULD READ THE HALL OF REJECTS MORE OFTEN!

making jabs at each other is what the internet is for you fucking idiots. oh, and for stealing things.

Ballkicks: (+333 / -161)
Posts: 3016 (0.449)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 19 of 31 (Originally posted on: 07-03-07 08:01:45 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

hey vissario if you're not going to respond please just admit how wrong you are
wir h÷ren ein singen im raum...
wir jagen die monotomie...
wir machen aus stunden ein jahr
und mondschein aus unserem haar
wir fliegen so weit wie noch nie
atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Reply 20 of 31 (Originally posted on: 07-03-07 09:23:56 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

It's just a polemics debate, but I'll humor you:

Quote:
perhaps you haven't been paying attention in the past few years, but alternative energy is pretty much the hot investment sector at the moment. global investment in environmentally-friendly energy has more than doubled in the past couple years, from somewhere around 28 billion to around 70 billion at the moment.


Cite your source, oh but wait, you're asthetik, therefore you don't have to prove any of your arguments with anything more than your rhetoric; haha, circular logic!

Quote:
as for the countless hacks plying any number of fantastic doomsday scenarios regarding peak-oil and the like, i would put about as much faith in them as the people who predicted world-wide Y2K carnage


Once again, because asthetik says so, he is correct. I offered a logical argument that, in accordance to most struggles over resources (using Israeli/Jordan/Syran conflicts as an example), nations tend to drop the pretenses of foreign discourse in favor of who has the most bombs and redoubts on a given peice of land to control a resource.

Quote:
do you think the oil giants who command the energy sector today aren't interested in controlling the post-oil market as well?



I am highly skeptical that energy companies are going to invest heavily in alternate fuels until the cost/benefits analysis of it outweighs the immediate gains of investing in continued oil exploitation. But hey, if you don't believe me, believe Popular Mechanics.

Quoted from from article:
"In the lab, many gasoline alternatives look good. Out on the road, automotive engineers have a lot of work to do, and energy companies have new infrastructure to build, before very many people can drive off into a petroleum-free future. And, there's the issue of money. Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter."


Comeone, explain away the basic capitalist principle of demand always preceding supply. When there comes a day that technology or geopolitics makes oil and its derivatives more expensive than hydro or solar-electric fuel, then that will also be the day we no longer drive oil-fueled cars.
asthetik
I SHOULD READ THE HALL OF REJECTS MORE OFTEN!

making jabs at each other is what the internet is for you fucking idiots. oh, and for stealing things.

Ballkicks: (+333 / -161)
Posts: 3016 (0.449)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 21 of 31 (Originally posted on: 07-03-07 10:52:11 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:


Cite your source, oh but wait, you're asthetik, therefore you don't have to prove any of your arguments with anything more than your rhetoric; haha, circular logic!



took me a bit of digging but june 2nd issue of the economist. thanks for the popular mechanics article (here i thought it was a magazine just for nerdy 16 year old boys and amateur ham radio operators), i'll be sure to read it.

Quote:

I am highly skeptical that energy companies are going to invest heavily in alternate fuels until the cost/benefits analysis of it outweighs the immediate gains of investing in continued oil exploitation.


market failures are something that governments need to address and given the recent shift in the political climate coupled with the massive investments into clean energy, they're largely on the right track. furthermore, despite what you may think in your conspiracy-theory riddled little mind, oil executives are not going to bring world society to a crashing collapse in a desperate pursuit to line their pockets further.

Quote:
When there comes a day that technology or geopolitics makes oil and its derivatives more expensive than hydro or solar-electric fuel, then that will also be the day we no longer drive oil-fueled cars.


yes, but whats your point? we're largely heading in the right direction. Even if you don't believe that global oil reserves will last for 40 years, the converse that we're well on our way to global apocalypse is equally questionable. the auto industry is starting to take alternative-energy driven cars very seriously. when governments start getting on board you're going to see a lot more change very quickly.

Quote:
I offered a logical argument that, in accordance to most struggles over resources (using Israeli/Jordan/Syran conflicts as an example), nations tend to drop the pretenses of foreign discourse in favor of who has the most bombs and redoubts on a given peice of land to control a resource.


except you're reducing an incredibly complex and dense political conflict into a resource land grab. the middle east is an incredibly delicate situation. things can't be simplified to the extent that you're trying to. and what is it you're trying to say anyways? that when politics fail nations go to war? is this even a point?
wir h÷ren ein singen im raum...
wir jagen die monotomie...
wir machen aus stunden ein jahr
und mondschein aus unserem haar
wir fliegen so weit wie noch nie

This reply was last edited on 07-03-07 11:00:38 PM by asthetik.
atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Reply 22 of 31 (Originally posted on: 07-04-07 12:50:30 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Asthetik:
yes, but whats your point? we're largely heading in the right direction. Even if you don't believe that global oil reserves will last for 40 years, the converse that we're well on our way to global apocalypse is equally questionable. the auto industry is starting to take alternative-energy driven cars very seriously. when governments start getting on board you're going to see a lot more change very quickly.


This is a straw man if I have ever seen one. Instead of replying directly to my hypothesis that nations will begin encroaching directly on resources vital to their economies, you create a totally new, and irrelevant, debate about me saying this will be the apocalypse. In other words, stay on topic and keep your hands out of my mouth.

Quoted from Asthetik:
except you're reducing an incredibly complex and dense political conflict into a resource land grab. the middle east is an incredibly delicate situation. things can't be simplified to the extent that you're trying to.


Before I reply, I need to know which conflict you are referring too because that entire missive is fraught with vague references.

Quoted from Asthetik:
and what is it you're trying to say anyways? that when politics fail nations go to war? is this even a point?


My "point" was that when push comes to shove, America, and all "great powers" of the period are going to use their strength to compete directly with each other for resources vital to their economies. In this case, the resource was oil, and as to who the contestants would be, it would likely be China (Iran as the proxy) against the United States (with Iraq as the proxy). Colonialism 2.0, basically.

Quoted from Ashetik:
yes, but whats your point? we're largely heading in the right direction. Even if you don't believe that global oil reserves will last for 40 years, the converse that we're well on our way to global apocalypse is equally questionable. the auto industry is starting to take alternative-energy driven cars very seriously. when governments start getting on board you're going to see a lot more change very quickly.



Are you seriously implying that China and India, and even Malaysia, the future home to 3-6 billion people by 2050, are making 'rapid progress' towards greening up their countries? Even now, China has nearly 450 new and huge coal plants on the design boards and planned for completion by 2013; is this the quick progress you were talking about?

Sure, the West, even the United States, is making some strides in lessening environment impact, but this is going to be irrelevant as two huge new consumer giants attempt to live the wasteful lives of less than a billion decadent Westerners. This planet is going to collapse under the strain, and it isn't going to be because of greedy corporations, but because of countries which cannot manage their own population and consumption growths.
The Drunk Knight
INTL Premium Member

drives a 2003 oxcart sierra

Ballkicks: (+14 / -1)
Posts: 63 (0.013)
Reg. Date: May 2007
Location: Camelot
Gender: Male
Reply 23 of 31 (Originally posted on: 07-04-07 08:32:18 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
JewZionist


Go fuck yourself.
...
asthetik
I SHOULD READ THE HALL OF REJECTS MORE OFTEN!

making jabs at each other is what the internet is for you fucking idiots. oh, and for stealing things.

Ballkicks: (+333 / -161)
Posts: 3016 (0.449)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 24 of 31 (Originally posted on: 07-04-07 08:56:58 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Instead of replying directly to my hypothesis that nations will begin encroaching directly on resources vital to their economies, you create a totally new, and irrelevant, debate about me saying this will be the apocalypse. In other words, stay on topic and keep your hands out of my mouth.


this was not what your argument was. you were making an inane point about your delusional idea that we're going to forget about alternative fuel because oil is still too cheap. amusingly, you're doing what you accused me of.

Quote:
Before I reply, I need to know which conflict you are referring too because that entire missive is fraught with vague references.


the same could be said for what you've been saying. you keep changing the subject; this was initially a debate about your misunderstanding of the free-market system.

Quote:


My "point" was that when push comes to shove, America, and all "great powers" of the period are going to use their strength to compete directly with each other for resources vital to their economies. In this case, the resource was oil, and as to who the contestants would be, it would likely be China (Iran as the proxy) against the United States (with Iraq as the proxy). Colonialism 2.0, basically.


once again, you're oversimplifing. the only reason we give a shit about iran is because they have the russians behind them. if we piss off russia too much they will shut off the taps, as they have already demonstrated they are more than willing to do. furthermore, given the massive inter-dependency of the us and and chinese economies, the idea that the two are gradually squaring off in some sort of resource war seems foolish.

Quote:

Are you seriously implying that China and India, and even Malaysia, the future home to 3-6 billion people by 2050, are making 'rapid progress' towards greening up their countries? Even now, China has nearly 450 new and huge coal plants on the design boards and planned for completion by 2013; is this the quick progress you were talking about


i was specifically referring to the west and that should have been fairly clear.

that being said, the asian population boom is not part of a globalized 'doomsday' exponential curve, and the population growth rate is on its way down.

china will come around. they're already starting to understand the enormous costs of their dirty industry (look at what they're doing to trying to save their fucked water table) and its only a matter of time before they start to make changes. thankfully consumer auto culture is not entrenched into their society yet, and the authoritarian government will be able to enact reform quickly, if not brutally. furthermore, the chinese population is starting to get smarter about pollution and its effects, as evidenced by the massive online-organized protest to halt the construction of a dangerous chemical plant in Xiamen. while there is undoutedly greater cause for concern in china, i have faith that they will come around in time.

as for india, i have far less confidence. but don't expect their 'decadent consumer culture' to flourish anytime soon, i'm of the opinion that they're going to boom and bust. their central bank has no idea what the fuck its doing and growth is out of control.
wir h÷ren ein singen im raum...
wir jagen die monotomie...
wir machen aus stunden ein jahr
und mondschein aus unserem haar
wir fliegen so weit wie noch nie
Quick Reply
Page: [ 1 2 ] Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
[ Thread Views: 3724 | Total Posts: 31 ]