NFL UK Forums

NFL UK Forums (https://forum.nfluk.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic - Entertainment/News (https://forum.nfluk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Politics (https://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=49460)

jack1 26.09.2009 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieBear (Post 975063)
Just to be clear - you have no qualms about invading a country and killing thousands of people for money? I wonder if you would be so blasé about this if you knew anyone involved.

Obviously its never going to be nice invading a nation and seeing people come home dead, but, the attitude I take, like so many others, is that if people knew that if we lost some of those oil resources then there quality of life would drop then war is the price we would have to pay. The same goes for clothing people say they hate sweat shops but then continue shopping at Primark and ASDA, I am only being honest.

jack1 26.09.2009 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret Admirer (Post 975076)
How long term do you want to go? It's been 6 years since we conquered Baghdad.


I want it to go on until we know we will have acsess to the oil supplys on those nations.

CharlieBear 26.09.2009 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack1 (Post 975100)
Obviously its never going to be nice invading a nation and seeing people come home dead, but, the attitude I take, like so many others, is that if people knew that if we lost some of those oil resources then there quality of life would drop then war is the price we would have to pay.

You are Jonathan Swift and I claim my £5

http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/modest.html

jack1 26.09.2009 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raider12 (Post 975086)
What is your theory Jack, and what research have you done to back up your theory. I tell you what Jack, no matter what anyone says on here you take the high ground and pontificate your thoughts on everyone else, but as Paul said when the heat is on you play the victim.

I have told you it would be unfair to reveal stories of people I know, on here, and I won't be pushed to do it. Of course my research isn't in depth but with the evidence I have this is my opinion, if more evidence comes to light then I will reconsider.

Right Mark, I don't think its fair to say what you and Paul have said, its simply ridiculous and false. What I do is express my opinion, if people choose to disagree thats fine, I don't shy away from debate. I am probably not the most empathetic person on here, but as for me playing the victim that again simply isn't true, I always continue debating in a fair and respectful manner, others however choose not too.

Quote:

It is getting to the stage that no matter what you post it is always in your opinion, sorry but in my view that is becomeing extremely wearisome and boring.
Weird on a debate forum ;)

Quote:

I enjoy peoples viewpoints and opinions its part of life and learning and accept on occasions that I don't agree with or accept there view. But I would give reasons, rather than demanding that they prove themselves wrong by proving you right.
When have I done this?

Quote:

"On your first point you aren't getting the jist of what I said, "

Oh I have, it is an unqualified comment with no evidence.

"Mark, I haven't grouped everyone together I am suggesting that some people may fit into my theory."

Unfortuneatly you have as you have been unclear on this theory and the research that you have done to back up your comments.
Read my post when I made the claim again.

Quote:

Debating is debating, it is people talking on a or varied subjects objectively, not in a confrontational manner which happens.

Mark
Confrontational, that seems a bit weird you saying that on a forum, especially when its you who is trying to cause a personal arguement.

jack1 26.09.2009 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieBear (Post 975113)
You are Jonathan Swift and I claim my £5

http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/modest.html

I'm not that bad ;)

Gengar 26.09.2009 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack1 (Post 975102)
I want it to go on until we know we will have acsess to the oil supplys on those nations.

You've misunderstood the question which followed from your own point.

You said you wanted oil price security in the long term, I asked what you considered to be long term, the illegal invasion took place in 2003, since then the oil price has been roughly 3-5 times what it was one year prior to the invasion. So in 6 years, we've not only massively inflated the price of oil, the one resource that our economies currently depend upon the most, but we've spent one trillion dollars doing so (financed by deficit).

Illegal invasion, costs lots of money and raises the price of oil - the one thing we went there to get. In the short and long term. And remember, since we transfer almost everything by road or air, when the price of oil rises, so does the price of everything.

FWIW, in terms of oil, 6 years is a very very long time. If rates of consumption continue to increase, we may only have 30 years left, and for those 30 years the price of oil (and therefore of everything else) will be rising.

The war in Iraq, and 'war on terror' in general has been an unprecedented disaster. One trillion dollars down, Osama is still at large (though we managed to catch his chuffeur and put him to death), there wasn't a single WMD in Iraq, Afganistan is still a failed state, the Taliban are still there, Iraq is a theocracy and slid to brink of civil war, the price of oil is up massively and the US Armed Forces (and to a lesser extent UKs also) have been made to look like mugs by a rag tag bunch of nobodies with a few AK47s, RPGs and IEDs. Not only have we lost any semblance of moral authority we once had, but the other powers, China, Russia and even Iran are emboldened by how our militaries have fared since Baghdad fell.

vann_mcelroy 26.09.2009 06:05 PM

Apologies for the language Jack1, I was outta line, I have sent an PM with words to that effect as well.

I am not talksports biggest fan, but there wasnt any excuse for my personal attack.

jack1 26.09.2009 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vann_mcelroy (Post 975255)
Apologies for the language Jack1, I was outta line, I have sent an PM with words to that effect as well.

I am not talksports biggest fan, but there wasnt any excuse for my personal attack.

Thanks fot the apology, I appreciate it.

Jack

jack1 26.09.2009 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret Admirer (Post 975191)
You've misunderstood the question which followed from your own point.

You said you wanted oil price security in the long term, I asked what you considered to be long term, the illegal invasion took place in 2003, since then the oil price has been roughly 3-5 times what it was one year prior to the invasion. So in 6 years, we've not only massively inflated the price of oil, the one resource that our economies currently depend upon the most, but we've spent one trillion dollars doing so (financed by deficit).

Illegal invasion, costs lots of money and raises the price of oil - the one thing we went there to get. In the short and long term. And remember, since we transfer almost everything by road or air, when the price of oil rises, so does the price of everything.

What you are saying is that the invasion increased oil prices, when in fact these increases were caused by other factors, the rises could have been even worse had it not been for the invasions.

Quote:

FWIW, in terms of oil, 6 years is a very very long time. If rates of consumption continue to increase, we may only have 30 years left, and for those 30 years the price of oil (and therefore of everything else) will be rising.

The war in Iraq, and 'war on terror' in general has been an unprecedented disaster. One trillion dollars down, Osama is still at large (though we managed to catch his chuffeur and put him to death), there wasn't a single WMD in Iraq, Afganistan is still a failed state, the Taliban are still there, Iraq is a theocracy and slid to brink of civil war, the price of oil is up massively and the US Armed Forces (and to a lesser extent UKs also) have been made to look like mugs by a rag tag bunch of nobodies with a few AK47s, RPGs and IEDs. Not only have we lost any semblance of moral authority we once had, but the other powers, China, Russia and even Iran are emboldened by how our militaries have fared since Baghdad fell.

You see the war has nothing do with Osama or UMD's really, its simply about Oil, although I agree that are military performance isn't great (thus why we need to keep Trident), the cost of potential oil rises could have been even worse.

Hannibal 26.09.2009 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack1 (Post 974223)
The people that benifet are the oil consumers those that loose out are the Iraqi people.

I think that history shows that the ONLY people who benefit from war are the armaments manufacturers. That is why after a number of conflicts in recent times, the big time players who are mainly American companies have been hauled in front of a Congressional committee of inquiry to explain their actions / conduct !


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 07:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.