Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Collymore

US, France and UK fire missiles at Syria

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MattP said:

The fact you've added the French into that shows you know absolutely nothing about this at all, we can't have an independent trade deal with the French for what are very obvious reasons.

yeh right 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Oil wars are done.  Oil will be obselete in a decade.

It's a requirement of life today. Oil wars will continue until it's all gone. Way beyond our lifetimes. There is no way that electric or eco automobiles will replace cars in the next decade, especially ones that wouldn't need to be charged from an electric port that is essentially powered by an oil generator. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

It's a requirement of life today. Oil wars will continue until it's all gone. Way beyond our lifetimes. There is no way that electric or eco automobiles will replace cars in the next decade, especially ones that wouldn't need to be charged from an electric port that is essentially powered by an oil generator. 

The oil argument is probably about 10 years out of date. If this was before the American shale revolution, I'd have more understanding of it. But having ramped up the investment and production in shake technology, America is now the third largest oil producer and the largest producer of natural gas in the world. So there is no need for America to go to war over oil.

 

On a separate note, I hope our politicians allow our country to take advantage of shale deposits so we can become energy independent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Foxhateram said:

It's a requirement of life today. Oil wars will continue until it's all gone. Way beyond our lifetimes. There is no way that electric or eco automobiles will replace cars in the next decade, especially ones that wouldn't need to be charged from an electric port that is essentially powered by an oil generator. 

Oil as a method of power generation for all but the biggest vehicles and the occasional piece of infrastructure will be dead in most of the OECD within thirty to fifty years IMO. Solar and battery generation is only going to get more efficient and when a tipping point is reached things will change very quickly.

 

Oil-derived plastics, however, will be necessary for a long time yet.

 

2 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

 

The oil argument is probably about 10 years out of date. If this was before the American shale revolution, I'd have more understanding of it. But having ramped up the investment and production in shake technology, America is now the third largest oil producer and the largest producer of natural gas in the world. So there is no need for America to go to war over oil.

 

On a separate note, I hope our politicians allow our country to take advantage of shale deposits so we can become energy independent.

There's something in this given how big shale gas is in the US now, but personally given some of the effects of shale gas extraction when not done properly in the US I'd need a lot of convincing as to safety and environmental effect mitigation before I'd agree to use on any kind of wide scale in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

 

The oil argument is probably about 10 years out of date. If this was before the American shale revolution, I'd have more understanding of it. But having ramped up the investment and production in shake technology, America is now the third largest oil producer and the largest producer of natural gas in the world. So there is no need for America to go to war over oil.

 

On a separate note, I hope our politicians allow our country to take advantage of shale deposits so we can become energy independent.

If this is the case we'll be well and truly ****ed by the middle of the century. UN climate change models require oil use to peak within the next 5 years and then rapidly drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Pretty much agree.

 

I've said it several times before but

the problem is that Iraq has caused us to swing too much the other way and turned the West paranoid into intervening in anything and got people dismissing that all intervention turns out to be a disaster rather than judging each individual act of intervention on its own merits.

 

The problem is faults of intervention are much more obvious than the faults of intervention, so people are much more likely to see the faults of intervention.

 

A lot of it goes back to the old "trolley problem" - people are much more likely not to get involved even if it saves lifes because they feel like their blood isn't on it if they don't get involved (even though the blood is just as equally on your hands and doing nothing when you could be helping when people are dying is just as much on you as killing them yourselves is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Pretty much agree.

 

I've said it several times before but

the problem is that Iraq has caused us to swing too much the other way and turned the West paranoid into intervening in anything and got people dismissing that all intervention turns out to be a disaster rather than judging each individual act of intervention on its own merits.

 

The problem is faults of intervention are much more obvious than the faults of intervention, so people are much more likely to see the faults of intervention.

 

A lot of it goes back to the old "trolley problem" - people are much more likely not to get involved even if it saves lifes because they feel like their blood isn't on it if they don't get involved (even though the blood is just as equally on your hands and doing nothing when you could be helping when people are dying is just as much on you as killing them yourselves is).

1

 

Is it just me or does this make no sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43771840

 

The most amazing thing I found in all of that is that Bolivia is on the UN Security Council. :blink:

 

I knew that there were 5 permanent members (US, UK, France, China & Russia), plus 10 non-permanent members who rotate.

 

Didn't know that the non-permanent members were elected by region for 2-year periods, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Non-permanent_members

 

Bit like the World Cup...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I knew that there were 5 permanent members (US, UK, France, China & Russia), plus 10 non-permanent members who rotate.

 

Didn't know that the non-permanent members were elected by region for 2-year periods, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Non-permanent_members

 

Bit like the World Cup...

Love hows its decided only those 5 are permanent members and that after all these years changes havent been made to the un council charter to better reflect, i dunno the world?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Love hows its decided only those 5 are permanent members and that after all these years changes havent been made to the un council charter to better reflect, i dunno the world?

 

 

 

Yep. There have been attempts to change it, but they've never got very far - yet.

 

The 5 permanents are still pretty powerful militarily if you take account of nukes - though others, like India, Pakistan & Israel, have nukes.

India will soon stand out as an anomaly - set to have world's biggest population within 2-3 decades, a growing power economically, a big army & nukes. Though I imagine Pakistan wouldn't be happy about India getting permanent status.

I suppose some other nations have become big economic powers but have so far chosen not to play a big role militarily for historic or cultural reasons (Germany, Japan) or maybe haven't become economically powerful enough (Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sampson said:

Pretty much agree.

 

I've said it several times before but

the problem is that Iraq has caused us to swing too much the other way and turned the West paranoid into intervening in anything and got people dismissing that all intervention turns out to be a disaster rather than judging each individual act of intervention on its own merits.

 

The problem is faults of intervention are much more obvious than the faults of intervention, so people are much more likely to see the faults of intervention.

 

A lot of it goes back to the old "trolley problem" - people are much more likely not to get involved even if it saves lifes because they feel like their blood isn't on it if they don't get involved (even though the blood is just as equally on your hands and doing nothing when you could be helping when people are dying is just as much on you as killing them yourselves is).

1

I've got sympathy for this argument, but for it to really work there needs to be complete, definitive, exacting evidence presented in full to the public or anyone that cares to know that such an intervention can and will save more lives than it takes, with analysis. If that's not the case, then it can easily be assumed that the opposite is true - and if that is right then the trolley problem becomes inverted and it becomes better to not be involved at all.

 

Transparency, rather than blind trust, is a key part of that argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sampson said:

Pretty much agree.

 

I've said it several times before but

the problem is that Iraq has caused us to swing too much the other way and turned the West paranoid into intervening in anything and got people dismissing that all intervention turns out to be a disaster rather than judging each individual act of intervention on its own merits.

 

The problem is faults of intervention are much more obvious than the faults of intervention, so people are much more likely to see the faults of intervention.

 

A lot of it goes back to the old "trolley problem" - people are much more likely not to get involved even if it saves lifes because they feel like their blood isn't on it if they don't get involved (even though the blood is just as equally on your hands and doing nothing when you could be helping when people are dying is just as much on you as killing them yourselves is).

 

If it was just Iraq I might have some sympathy for that argument, but the intervention in Libya has left another failed state in its wake.

 

At the end of the day, it's not our (the West) business to be the World's policeman, judge, jury and executioner, especially as our motives are transparently not based on altruism but rather geo-politics. Where were we when the genocide in Rwanda was happening? Where are we now a similar genocide is befalling the Rohingya in Myanmar?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

If it was just Iraq I might have some sympathy for that argument, but the intervention in Libya has left another failed state in its wake.

 

At the end of the day, it's not our (the West) business to be the World's policeman, judge, jury and executioner, especially as our motives are transparently not based on altruism but rather geo-politics. Where were we when the genocide in Rwanda was happening? Where are we now a similar genocide is befalling the Rohingya in Myanmar?

And (I know this drum has been beaten before but) why aren't we pulling up the Saudis for bombing Yemen or having a word with the Israelis (and the Palestinians, come to that) for...I dunno, pretty much every human rights abuse under the sun?

 

Add consistency to transparency above as essential when considering such things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And (I know this drum has been beaten before but) why aren't we pulling up the Saudis for bombing Yemen or having a word with the Israelis (and the Palestinians, come to that) for...I dunno, pretty much every human rights abuse under the sun?

 

Add consistency to transparency above as essential when considering such things.

 

Very true.

 

And what of the hypocrisy displayed this week regarding Russian vetoes at the UN? How many times has the US used its veto on behalf of the Israelis?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Very true.

 

And what of the hypocrisy displayed this week regarding Russian vetoes at the UN? How many times has the US used its veto on behalf of the Israelis?

 

I make it around 30 from a quick count. Russia has used the veto most overall, the US the most since 1970, and since 1992 they're roughly on a par.

 

Look back into the past and there's also some anti-South African apartheid regime resolutions that the US vetoed, along with the UK. Interestingly, the UK hasn't used its veto since 1989, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

If it was just Iraq I might have some sympathy for that argument, but the intervention in Libya has left another failed state in its wake.

 

At the end of the day, it's not our (the West) business to be the World's policeman, judge, jury and executioner, especially as our motives are transparently not based on altruism but rather geo-politics. Where were we when the genocide in Rwanda was happening? Where are we now a similar genocide is befalling the Rohingya in Myanmar?

But if not us (the West), who?

 

I don't disagree that the issue of intervention is a tough one, except when it's about destroying the assets of a ruler who is using banned chemical weapons. Then it's quite easy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...