satanic_goat_christ wrote:Well, that must have been part of the motivation for sending a fully equipped task force half way round the world over two tiny, almost uninhabitable islands. Considering how close the Argentinian junta was to collapse anyway, using the UN to get economic sanctions put through on them could have tipped them over the edge and ended it without violence.

The 80s might have been better than the 70s, but by the sound of it that's like saying Stalinism in East Germany was an improvement on the Nazis. Thatcher might have fixed the economy, but the overall change to the political landscape means now no one even suggests seriously deviating from 'private is better' and the rest of that crap. Seeing I didn't live through the 80s, I'm not really qualified to bitch about what happened in them, but what's happening now is a direct result of free market capitalism, which goes right back to Thatcherism.

Hmm, well, on the 1st point - I think it was more of a way of Galtieri and his cronies to bolster their standing in Argentina, after 5-6 years of economic disaster & large scale civil unrest. Here was a cause that most Argentinians would fall behind, where years of protracted negotiation had got then nowhere. Funny you should mention sanctions, as that was a plan the Junta had, i.e. cutting off supplies to the islands.

I don't see how it was possible for the UK to get UN economic sanctions against Argentina. Even the US didn't back us, so what chance would there have been to have a UN resolution passed? UN resolutions, anyhow, are a toothless threat.
If we hadn't gone there in force, the islands would still be property of Argentina & the British citizens would be under their enforced rule. Actually the effect of the war was the return of democracy to Argentina, and the miltary losing their reputation as the “moral reserve of the nation”.

"..like saying Stalinism in East Germany was an improvement on the Nazis" In what way was the Communist years in the GDR better than the Nazis? The economy was shot to bits, and the standard of living declined dramatically. Civil liberties were eroded, and a surveillance society was borne - far exceeded that of the Nazis (who were actually backed by a majority of Germans, who elected them).
If there is any warning about the public owned sector, you don't have to look further than the former GDR! Or look at the state of British Rail before privatisation. Under investment for decades, services delayed or cancelled, inefficient working practices and structuring. OK, it is not perfect now, but it is damn sight improvement from Nationalisation.

"Free Market Capitalism" doesn't go back to Thatcherism, it goes back to the 18th Century - with economic philosophy on Laissez-faire & the likes of "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith.

What's happening now is a combination of over confident banking in the good years, and the public not holding their nerve, due to media coverage. It's not exactly the Great Depression of 1929 all over again, is it? You get periods of peak and trough, that's just how it goes, and things will pick up again. In fact, it seems that the UK is one of the few nations in Europe where it is not picking up again already, a sure indication that Gordon Brown's genius as an economic miracle worker was vastly exaggerated.

Going back to the original point of this thread, i.e. the Lisbon Treaty. You only have to look at the way the EU conducts itself in getting this treaty ratified. If a country doesn't give the right verdict, they are asked to try again until they do get the right vote. Look at the amount of cash and propaganda put behind the "Yes" vote in Ireland recently. In the end, the Irish people could only say "yes", out of fear of losing EU subsidies after another "no" vote. Even France, the birth place of the EU vision, said no to the original treaty.

It will be interesting to see how the Czech situation will pan out and how playing hardball with EU bureaucracy works.

Overall, however, I don't believe that referendums are always the right way to make national decisions. I am sure if we had a national referendum on Capital Punishment reintroduction, the result would be "Yes".

The Stalinism/Nazism example was more of an example of comparing something shit to something else shit, but Nazism was only really better if you were one of the 'ideal citizens'. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure anything would be a step up. And the economy might have been shot to bits under the GDR, but it wasn't much better under the last few years of Nazi rule either, and at least there weren't terror raids from the Allies and constant shelling from the USSR.

I know free market capitalism as an ideology goes back a lot further, but after 1929 it was in the political wilderness for a few decades, and it didn't make a return until Thatcher. Since then, none of the main political parties has had anything other than some kind of neoliberal economic policy.

Gordon Brown is not a miracle worker, all he did was give the banks a shitload of money then left them alone. But no one else would have done much better, especially not a bunch of privatisation-mad Tories. Maybe the fact that most of Europe is coming out of recession is because they don't all stick to the free-markets-small-state line so rabidly.

satanic_goat_christ wrote:The Stalinism/Nazism example was more of an example of comparing something shit to something else shit, but Nazism was only really better if you were one of the 'ideal citizens'. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure anything would be a step up. And the economy might have been shot to bits under the GDR, but it wasn't much better under the last few years of Nazi rule either, and at least there weren't terror raids from the Allies and constant shelling from the USSR.

I know free market capitalism as an ideology goes back a lot further, but after 1929 it was in the political wilderness for a few decades, and it didn't make a return until Thatcher. Since then, none of the main political parties has had anything other than some kind of neoliberal economic policy.

Gordon Brown is not a miracle worker, all he did was give the banks a shitload of money then left them alone. But no one else would have done much better, especially not a bunch of privatisation-mad Tories. Maybe the fact that most of Europe is coming out of recession is because they don't all stick to the free-markets-small-state line so rabidly.

Maybe, maybe not..it seems the Germans, in particular, are not so sure about that, as their recent elections proved. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8278324.stm

Also Free Market reforms were brought into China in 1978, which has transformed the Chinese economy. "Only 30 years later, China had developed from an economically desolate and ideological-driven country into an industrial powerhouse, rapidly overtaking developed western nations in recession." (Donald and Benewick 2005).

blacktears wrote:

crossofiron wrote:
If you google a bit further there are some well qualified practising structural engineers that aren't convinced either. Those
towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, earthquakes, gales etc. this wasnt a medievil cathederal we are talking about here. The pentagon attack is even more mysterious.

[color=#800000]Yes, but there are also dynamics engineers that can prove that bumble bees are structurally incapable of flight. There is also plenty of structural engineers that ARE convinced. Are we just going to believe the ones that aren't, to conveniently back a theory?[/color]

Sometimes by reading up on the past you can get an insight into the future, ask yourself wether we would be in iraq and afghanistan if not for the 9/11 terrorism. The nazis used the burning of the reichstag parliament as a pretext for the need to persecute the jews.

[color=#400000]The Reichstag burning was actually used to discredit the NS party's main political threat - the Communist Party. The Reichstag fire was officially attributed to a nearly blind Dutch communist radical named Marinus van der Lubbe who was arrested in the Reichstag building as it burned. At the time it was uncertain whether Germany would veer in a Communist or NS direction. Have a read of Michael Moorcock's "The Vengeance of Rome" for a stimulating insight into this period in the 30s.

You also can't look at this 9/11 piece of terrorism in isolation, as a prime cause for the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan. It was the main catalyst, yes, but there had been ongoing & systematic terrorism attacks on American targets well before 9/11. [/color]"

Yes, but there are also dynamics engineers that can prove that bumble bees are structurally incapable of flight. There is also plenty of structural engineers that ARE convinced. Are we just going to believe the ones that aren't, to conveniently back a theory?

...I'm just saying that this is not at all black and white, this idea that anyone not believing the official account of events are all nutters posting on you tube with no understanding of the subject just isn't the case. As I said in my previous posting, I was working in the office surrounded by building engineers on the day it happened, the consensus of opinion amongst all of us at the time including two chartered engineers present was that the buildings were in very little danger of total collapse. This is bourne out by the undisputed evidence that both the buildings took the full impact and remained standing.
The subsequent total collapse of the three buildings afterwards into their own footprints suprised everyone at the time. I've read up on both sides of the debate, also having studied structural enginering at university as part of my course, and worked in a professional capacity in building engineering I make my own mind up on these issues and I'm still not at all convinced at the official account of events.




Sometimes by reading up on the past you can get an insight into the future, ask yourself wether we would be in iraq and afghanistan if not for the 9/11 terrorism. The nazis used the burning of the reichstag parliament as a pretext for the need to persecute the jews.

[color=#FF0000][color=#400000]The Reichstag burning was actually used to discredit the NS party's main political threat - the Communist Party. The Reichstag fire was officially attributed to a nearly blind Dutch communist radical named Marinus van der Lubbe who was arrested in the Reichstag building as it burned. At the time it was uncertain whether Germany would veer in a Communist or NS direction. Have a read of Michael Moorcock's "The Vengeance of Rome" for a stimulating insight into this period in the 30s.



... You are right that the 1933 reichstag burning was used by hitler to [i]primarily to stifle the communists and pave the way to absolute power by making the population feel under threat , therefore justifying exceptional measures taken afterwards in the interests of national security. So I was a little off the mark on that one I accept... But not just communists were the target, powers gained as a result of the reichsatg fire facilitated laws removing jews from public office to be quickly passed without opposition as soon as hitler gained total control .
Actually the later assasination in 1938 of a german diplomat in by a polish jew was the pretext used for crystal night and further and more extreme anti semitism, but I would argue that the reichstag burning was the spark that set the chain of events towards nazi anti semitism in motion, just as 9/11 has been the pretext for this 'war on terror' , errosion of civil liberties and this polarised lenninist ideologue 'with us or against us attitude' .

The subsequent total collapse of the three buildings afterwards into their own footprints suprised everyone at the time. I've read up on both sides of the debate, also having studied structural enginering at university as part of my course, and worked in a professional capacity in building engineering I make my own mind up on these issues and I'm still not at all convinced at the official account of events.

That's fair enough, I am all behind independent thinkers. Being a independent thinker myself, I am going to have to be sceptical about your scepticism here.

Actually the later assasination in 1938 of a german diplomat in by a polish jew was the pretext used for crystal night and further and more extreme anti semitism, but I would argue that the reichstag burning was the spark that set the chain of events towards nazi anti semitism in motion, just as 9/11 has been the pretext for this 'war on terror' , errosion of civil liberties and this polarised lenninist ideologue 'with us or against us attitude'

Yeah, I think the correct word for that is Jingoism. We will have to see what history makes of this in centuries to come (not that we will be alive to see it). From my point of view, I refuse to believe that the Bush administration had a contingency plan to create 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq & Afghanistan. Rather they saw it as an opportunity, in the aftermath, to 1) finish unfinished business with Saddam Hussein & Iraq 2) to assert US power in the region to intimidate their real concern - Iran 3) to guarantee oil reserves.

That's about all I have say on the matter. I think the thread should now revert back to its original context - the Lisbon Treaty

Yeah, I think the correct word for that is Jingoism. We will have to see what history makes of this in centuries to come (not that we will be alive to see it). From my point of view, I refuse to believe that the Bush administration had a contingency plan to create 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq & Afghanistan. Rather they saw it as an opportunity, in the aftermath, to 1) finish unfinished business with Saddam Hussein & Iraq 2) to assert US power in the region to intimidate their real concern - Iran 3) to guarantee oil reserves.

very much in agreement on point 1,2 and 3

That's about all I have say on the matter. I think the thread should now revert back to its original context - the Lisbon Treaty

yeah agreed on that too, not trying to hijack threads here, just got a bit sidetracked....broing on the debate metaaaaaaal!

i think all the debates here are completely relevant to the Lisbon treaty as old tactics are employed to sway decisions of the public time and time again. in the end it all comes down to control because that's what brings power. before we had religion but to expand we had to be educated which exposed flaws in our religions so that was replaced by media, which works perfectly! The Iraq thing is simple! our economy is runs on oil! we are running out, and we know who has it but educated people will not just agree to war without good and just reason due to the moral upbringing used to keep us well behaved and within the laws of the land. SO! we need to be threatened to go to war, so we're given a threat and we go to war and we get oil! now we have oil. But without that threat we wouldn't have any oil now would we. very very simple! just modern Vikings really. if it was a few hundred years ago before media, they would have called it a Holy war! oh wait they did call it a Holy war! for the Holy oil! the point is the Lisbon treaty is about control and if it goes through it makes things like this much easier for the fat controller

I don't like the idea of being completely controlled!

By the way i have found everyone's points very interesting and have really enjoyed reading them, keep em coming!

Headtrip Higgins wrote:The Iraq thing is simple! our economy is runs on oil! we are running out, and we know who has it but educated people will not just agree to war without good and just reason due to the moral upbringing used to keep us well behaved and within the laws of the land. SO! we need to be threatened to go to war, so we're given a threat and we go to war and we get oil! now we have oil.

But, the ridiculous thing is, there's tonnes of untapped oil reserves in the world, without having to invade countries to get it. There is allegedly a huge mass in the seas around Greenland, and around the Falklands. Until now, it has been too difficult/costly to get to it. I think it's a about time we started exploiting it.

Of course, the cost of oil has gone sky high since the invasion of Iraq. I am sure that a lot of the Bush administration are not that bothered, considering they benefit by having large stakes in those petroleum companies.

I guess you guys heard about the oil pipeline that was built through the areas of Afghanistan we are suppossedly trying to secure from the Taliban? It runs through into Pakistan. It's been pretty hush-hush and not exactly mentioned a lot in the media. You would have thought it would have made the headlines when the Taliban tried to blow it up, but hardly a dickie bird.

smoke weed everyday

Maybe this more liberal government approach to drink and 'soft' drugs is to make the population think that we have much more freedom, whereas in fact our most important civil liberties are being slowly taken away from us as we party on oblivious to what is really happening in the world.

One very real weapon of mass destruction that has been found in afghanistan is heroin...now the farmers are encouraged to increase production as a method of jihad on the west. Where i live on stoke on trent the place is infested by it. The blood price of this war isn't just our soldiers coming back in body bags.

On America and the UK's need for energy, as well as any environemtal considerations, working on renewable energy resources and trying to move away from an oil based economy has important national security implications too.

To respond to all this would be a ridiculous task. So I will summarise my opinion from my general casual viewing:

- Lisbon Treaty is not much of a concern in the grand scheme of things. Yes, we are talking about the continuing erosion of our national sovereignty but there are lots of good things to come from European influence. Also, the continuing intergration of Europe, for better or worse, is going to happen. You can either accomodate it or resist it and find yourself on the sore end. Since this thread's pace has slowed, it's interesting to note what's been happening with Cameron's position...

- The 9/11 conspiracies are generally daft and unnecessary. Not all of it but a lot of it. Considering the global situation I am much more concerned with conspiratorial facts (government lies to execute wars on bad grounds that are condemned by the rest of the international community, the expoloitation of developing countries through pressure from international institutions, the messing with the affairs of the leadership of some countries and supporting the abusive leaderships in other countries). If there is anything to these allegations, it's safe to assume that those involved will be able to maintain their veil of secrecy and disinformation. My personal opinion is that Bush and the Republican cabinet were not aware of the attack but this was largely due to them intentionally avoided scrutinising and pressuring the Saudis (where the hijackers were from and where a lot of funding came from). Their crime, I believe, was negligence and not collusion.

- The person who said they were old enough to remember the dark days of Labour: I'm sure you must have been a young pup at the time and so were either very politically aware or have formed your analysis retrospectively. While it is easy to condemn what happened under the old Labour time, it doesn't necessarily equate to an impressive Thatcher government. I recall from my degree that some political analysis at the time prior to Thatcher's election suggested that whoever won the next election would win 'the next three terms' due to oil reserves being tapped in Scotland. I might have this a bit wrong but, to me, I am aware that Thatcher's economic policy was a farse and there were some dodgy number tweakings to make the time look better controlled than it was. Beyond this, her social policy was largely vile. Well, if someone who famously states that 'there is no such thing as society' can be said to a have a social policy. Her legacy put us into the neo-liberal mentality of selfish and destructive economic policy and mean-spirited social and welfare issues. It continued with Blair and Brown (boom and bust a thing of the past - HA!) and (let's face it) will continue with that nob-head Cameron.

Can I also say, though I rarely comment I always read the shit people put down and that I found this thread very entertaining. I'm quite a sad cunt!

STD_Caps wrote:- The person who said they were old enough to remember the dark days of Labour: I'm sure you must have been a young pup at the time and so were either very politically aware or have formed your analysis retrospectively.

Sorry, realised this sounds really condescending and patronising. I didn't mean it like that. Sorry.

STD_Caps wrote:Beyond this, her social policy was largely vile

Couldn't agree more, the whole third point is basically what I was trying to say, but a lot more coherent and actually thought out.