K-uglen Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Also: How to address the increases in energy consumption, Jason? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K-uglen: The shortsighted government has decided not to support research in wave energy, fuel cells etc. which is stupid from whichever angle you look at it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Aren't they putting up some monster offshore wind generators, though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-rudi- Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB: The first phone call was made by Tebbutt on a mobile phone just two hours after the bus blast in Tavistock Square. He told police that Portsmouth would be bombed before hanging up, the court heard. The police then called him back twice and during these calls he gave his name and address. What an absolute sick bastard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Nevermind that, what a frikkin numpty extraordinaire, he called from his mobile and gave his name and address. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K-uglen: Also: How to address the increases in energy consumption, Jason? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Certainly more needs to be done on the conservation side of things. Until that happens, economic growth is always going to result in increased energy consumption. Population growth is always going to result in increased energy consumption. That was a major objection to the energy bill that just went through Congress, that it focused almost entirely on production. The higher gasoline prices are having an effect, with people at least considering switches to more fuel efficient vehicles. I just saw an article yesterday about how some people are complaining because some major metro areas (like the Virginia part of the DC area) allow individuals with hybrid vehicles to travel in car pool lanes. The people who are car pooling complain that those lanes are now filled with lone drivers in hybrids. Which defeats of the purpose of getting cars off the highways, but does at least give a benefit to someone who makes the investment in a more fuel effecient vehicle. I don't think you want to beat people over the head, or issue penalties or things like that. Rather, it needs to be a positive reinforcement: i.e., you buy a hybrid and we'll let you have car pool privleges, or tax rebates, or something in that manner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank: There's Alaska, but there's also new interest in oil shale production, coal-bed methane extraction, liquified coal to produce synthetic oil, ethanol is back on the map, etc. One of the criticisms of ethanol was the subsidies that were going to produce it, but even with the subsidies it's still cheaper than normal gasoline now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> My feelings too. In world war 2 countries with poor supplies of oil managed to refine all sorts of stuff as substitutes, and I don't doubt the same could be done again. It'd sting a little, of course, but it wouldn't bring about the collapse of society. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank: I don't think you want to beat people over the head, or issue penalties or things like that. Rather, it needs to be a positive reinforcement: i.e., you buy a hybrid and we'll let you have car pool privleges, or tax rebates, or something in that manner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Rebates and privileges are over complicating the matter. It's more like the item needs a subsidy to make it cheaper to buy in the first place. Most punters are thicker than the salesman, and he'll run rings around them selling what gets him the best margin - but one being substantially cheaper than the other in the first place will make the buggers life far more difficult. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank: Are there cases where government has to step in? Sure, in cases of national security in things like oil and steel. But also in cases of economic security, keeping Americans employed, etc. The purpose of government isn't to develop the economy in other countries, as free traders suggest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't worldwide free trade the only long term path to stability and world peace? Each part of the world should specialise in whatever resource it can provide most efficiently and stop subsidising those it can't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank: Are there cases where government has to step in? Sure, in cases of national security in things like oil and steel. But also in cases of economic security, keeping Americans employed, etc. The purpose of government isn't to develop the economy in other countries, as free traders suggest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't worldwide free trade the only long term path to stability and world peace? Each part of the world should specialise in whatever resource it can provide most efficiently and stop subsidising those it can't? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, in an interdependent sort of way, yes. OTOH, to stop subsidizing certain things or to let particular parts of your economy pack up and move to other countries causes a tremendous amount of dislocation. Look at what's happened in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, etc. with auto companies moving production to Mexico. Those cities have fallen apart because of the loss of those well-paying jobs. Autoworkers who were making $25/hour are forced into jobs that pay $10/hour while trying to pay off the mortgage, send their kids to university, etc. In the meantime, they cut back on what they spend at the grocery store, the hardware store, etc. And then we wonder why the savings rate is so abysmal. But the economists would tell you that moving auto production to Mexico is a good thing because the Mexicans can produce them for less money. Well, no it isn't. Not when you factor in the costs of economic disruption to communities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 It'll sting, yes. But it's the only long term solution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Not, perhaps, that that matters. With what we're doing to the planet taking the long term view may well turn out to be erroneous in the end.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Okwaeze Otusi Posted July 9, 2005 SI Staff Share Posted July 9, 2005 Anyone watching the news, birmingham city centre evacuated and police have carried out controlled explosions. Bloody wankers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack O\'Sullivan Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 If only we had a thread about it.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Okwaeze Otusi Posted July 9, 2005 SI Staff Share Posted July 9, 2005 Oops only just seen it, my apologies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Los Rojiblancosâ„¢: Anyone watching the news, birmingham city centre evacuated and police have carried out controlled explosions. Bloody wankers </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Bit harsh. The police aren't doing it just to make a nuisance of themselves, I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantonarv Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJ: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed: I think the transition of a tribal ancient value system into an environment of a modern state and modern access to goods and information is breeding ground for all kinds of trouble. You get a lot of corruption, a lot of dictatorships, frustration, and all that other stuff. That was Stage 1. Look in Africa, Latin America, M. East, everyone is going through that stage in the last 100 years. Stage 2 is to improve the corrupt system into one that does provide proper education and opportunities for its people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The problem with comparison is, that the bad guys nowadays are very much actively kept in power by those amongst ourselves who see some sort of money-making opportunity in it. (And before it was ideology of course. Sovs versus Capitalists). </div></BLOCKQUOTE> DJ, you're gonna go off the deep end into conspiracy theories if you keep on with this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The thing is, knowing that there is a super-rich minority, who are able to pretty much control world events to their own liking, how can anyone place their trust those few? It's very tempting to disregard critism as the beginnings of conspiracy loonacy, but is it really so far-fetched to suggest that those in power will don't mind harming the less rich or less powerful for their own benefit? When you look at the world, you could argue that is exactly what has happened up to this point in time, and will continue too. Whats even more worrying is that this is the system we seem to be encouraging poorer nations to adopt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree check this site http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spend...orldMilitarySpending Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Okwaeze Otusi Posted July 9, 2005 SI Staff Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Los Rojiblancosâ„¢: Anyone watching the news, birmingham city centre evacuated and police have carried out controlled explosions. Bloody wankers </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Bit harsh. The police aren't doing it just to make a nuisance of themselves, I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I wasn't referring to the police, i meant the terrorist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I bloody know that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Olly Kenney Posted July 9, 2005 SI Staff Share Posted July 9, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/uk_num...aftermath/html/1.stm Few pics of the bus just after the bomb had gone off, the 2nd and 3rd pics Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Okwaeze Otusi Posted July 9, 2005 SI Staff Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: I bloody know that </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cantonarv: I agree check this site <snip> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, the world number one industry recently became tourism. Does that appear to you to be the consequence of control by a clique of power crazed neocons? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Oh, FFS. More 2 minute silences? We'll end up not being able to talk at all in 10 years time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cantonarv: I agree check this site <snip> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, the world number one industry recently became tourism. Does that appear to you to be the consequence of control by a clique of power crazed neocons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yet another straw man from the bertster. on a roll son. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 You mean someone else incapable of putting up a coherent argument? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 poster: the military-industrial complex is a crucial factor in the repression of millions, possibly billions, by a dangerous ruling elite. bert: yes, but lots of people like to go on holiday. is that dangerous too? poster: western governments attach little value to the lives of civilians in developing nations. bert: but sometimes we send them a job lot of beechams cold and flu, should we stop? poster: it's all about money really, isn't it? bert: mariah carey has a few squid and she was rubbish at live8, so are you saying we should invade her next? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Are you drunk, man? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 no, but i did have some very suspect sausages for dinner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-uglen Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K-uglen: The shortsighted government has decided not to support research in wave energy, fuel cells etc. which is stupid from whichever angle you look at it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Aren't they putting up some monster offshore wind generators, though? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Four offshore wind parks of monster size were planned under the previous government. The current government cut two of the projects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Hairy Japanese bastards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.moustache Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cantonarv: I agree check this site <snip> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, the world number one industry recently became tourism. Does that appear to you to be the consequence of control by a clique of power crazed neocons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I've just started looking at that site, if those figures are remotely accurate, It's hard not to be disgusted. $956 bllion in one year on military spending? And the best the G8 can muster is $50 billion, maybe, over however many years. The world is spending money, but it isn't on peace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache: I've just started looking at that site, if those figures are remotely accurate, It's hard not to be disgusted. $956 bllion in one year on military spending? And the best the G8 can muster is $50 billion, maybe, over however many years. The world is spending money, but it isn't on peace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> For starters, that's just aid to the government - a lot of aid also goes to NGOs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dying Dougs Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache: I've just started looking at that site, if those figures are remotely accurate, It's hard not to be disgusted. $956 bllion in one year on military spending? And the best the G8 can muster is $50 billion, maybe, over however many years. The world is spending money, but it isn't on peace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yeah deffo, its pretty bad, and give bush another year in office, along with brainwashing blair into retaliating against the terrorits,and we have something to worry about Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Where do we retaliate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: Is your opinion that we have actually lost our integrity, or that we have lost our integrity in the eyes of the world? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> That we've lost our integrity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 How can we regain it? It'll take more than cold showers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Stop copying American foreign policy would be a good start. It sucks and it doesn't suit us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Expansion of the Commonwealth, you mean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Expansion of the EU with Britain one of the main driving forces. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Aaaaarrggh! Germans! Thousands of 'em! Aaaarrrgghh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Where does the EU expand beyond those already planned? As far as Russia? That won't please the bad guys at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Who ever wants to join as far as I'm concerned and is happy to meet the political and economic requirements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Isn't unlimited expansionism just going to scare more muslims to the fundamentalists? Do you think the EU would be welcomed on what is seen as muslim territory? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cantonarv: I agree check this site <snip> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, the world number one industry recently became tourism. Does that appear to you to be the consequence of control by a clique of power crazed neocons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I've just started looking at that site, if those figures are remotely accurate, It's hard not to be disgusted. $956 bllion in one year on military spending? And the best the G8 can muster is $50 billion, maybe, over however many years. The world is spending money, but it isn't on peace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but about $350 billion of that is the US alone. And I've read in other places that roughly a third of that is just to keep oil supplies coming out of the Middle East. Which, I might point out, Europe and Japan are far more reliant upon than the US. (about 50% of US consumption is supplies by domestic oil production,. The Middle East supplies about 24% of US oil, which is actually a smaller proportion than in the 1970s) ( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: Stop copying American foreign policy would be a good start. It sucks and it doesn't suit us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Cool. I'd like to see the EU reaction when it realizes it has to spend more of its own money on its defense. I really can't blame the EU for its current position though, which boils down to "If the Yanks want to call all the shots, then they can spend the money." We're so ****ing stupid, we're probably the first empire in world history where more resources go out than come in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa, look at my pert ars Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cantonarv: I agree check this site <snip> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, the world number one industry recently became tourism. Does that appear to you to be the consequence of control by a clique of power crazed neocons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I've just started looking at that site, if those figures are remotely accurate, It's hard not to be disgusted. $956 bllion in one year on military spending? And the best the G8 can muster is $50 billion, maybe, over however many years. The world is spending money, but it isn't on peace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but about $350 billion of that is the US alone. And I've read in other places that roughly a third of that is just to keep oil supplies coming out of the Middle East. Which, I might point out, Europe and Japan are far more reliant upon than the US. (about 50% of US consumption is supplies by domestic oil production,. The Middle East supplies about 24% of US oil, which is actually a smaller proportion than in the 1970s) ( </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Does that take into account the amount the Gulf countries pay the US for protection? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cantonarv: I agree check this site <snip> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, the world number one industry recently became tourism. Does that appear to you to be the consequence of control by a clique of power crazed neocons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I've just started looking at that site, if those figures are remotely accurate, It's hard not to be disgusted. $956 bllion in one year on military spending? And the best the G8 can muster is $50 billion, maybe, over however many years. The world is spending money, but it isn't on peace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but about $350 billion of that is the US alone. And I've read in other places that roughly a third of that is just to keep oil supplies coming out of the Middle East. Which, I might point out, Europe and Japan are far more reliant upon than the US. (about 50% of US consumption is supplies by domestic oil production,. The Middle East supplies about 24% of US oil, which is actually a smaller proportion than in the 1970s) ( </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Does that take into account the amount the Gulf countries pay the US for protection? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Not that I'm aware of. I could be wrong, but AFAIK it was just straight spending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.moustache Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: Stop copying American foreign policy would be a good start. It sucks and it doesn't suit us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Cool. I'd like to see the EU reaction when it realizes it has to spend more of its own money on its defense. I really can't blame the EU for its current position though, which boils down to "If the Yanks want to call all the shots, then they can spend the money." We're so ****ing stupid, we're probably the first empire in world history where more resources go out than come in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe EU policy wont be as reliant upon military as US policy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank: We're so ****ing stupid, we're probably the first empire in world history where more resources go out than come in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache: Maybe EU policy wont be as reliant upon military as US policy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Wait 'til the Frogs get bombed. We'll see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Is it wrong to laugh at some of this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew K Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MattyT: poster: the military-industrial complex is a crucial factor in the repression of millions, possibly billions, by a dangerous ruling elite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> To be fair, anything after a mention of "the military-industrial complex" should be reasonably ignored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.