The Politics Thread

[thebish]

Religion. It's all very much about religion.

no - it's not - not really.

[Bruce Rioja]

Religion. It's all very much about religion.

no - it's not - not really.

Oh, can you give us a minute whilst I just nip out for popcorn and pop?

[Lord Kangana]

I'm certainly skeptical enough to think it possible that, once we had 'control' of Iraq, the oil-fields became an important asset and I don't doubt that had some effect on policy, but do I think it even a possibility as a motivation for going to war in the first place? Not a chance.

Then I fear you need to do a great deal of further research before the discussion could ever progress.

[Prufrock]

I'm afraid I can't as the libraries have all been closed to keep us stupid.

And the discussion never progresses. It never gets beyond 'what about the oil?' because it's childish and easy. Where is your evidence? And to be clear, the reasons for different conflicts in different circumstances are not evidence (I don't dispute the notion that wars have been fought for resources, but specifically the notion that either of these too are - well, I dispute the notion that gas is a motive in Gaza, I don't dispute that the resource of 'land' is a motive). Further, it has to be evidence which can only show oil was a major motive. That we took control of the oil once we'd gone in doesn't prove anything either way.

[Lord Kangana]

Oil as a major motive at the start of WW1 (to pluck a fairly easy example) was to fuel the newly-oil powered Royal Navy - and to deny the same to the German Navy. Historical context is everything, all trade happened by sea. In some senses, the policy worked, as Germany crumbled from within because of our strangle-hold blockade.

If you'd like some quotes that predate the start of the war, or some actions that would provide prima facie evidence of why it would be a principal motivation, within historical context, I'd be more than happy to provide them. Or indeed a quick explanation as to why Jackie Fisher, nearly 20 years before the start of WW1 had the nickname "oil maniac".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Energy security is obviously a 'big deal' in world affairs, but, like Pru, I do wonder where the directing mind is.

I mean, going to war to secure access to oil might well be very sensible utilitarian long-term thinking, but I don't see how it would advance the short-term reputational and electoral needs of politicians to proceed with that long game in mind.

[Prufrock]

Oil as a major motive at the start of WW1 (to pluck a fairly easy example) was to fuel the newly-oil powered Royal Navy - and to deny the same to the German Navy. Historical context is everything, all trade happened by sea. In some senses, the policy worked, as Germany crumbled from within because of our strangle-hold blockade.

If you'd like some quotes that predate the start of the war, or some actions that would provide prima facie evidence of why it would be a principal motivation, within historical context, I'd be more than happy to provide them. Or indeed a quick explanation as to why Jackie Fisher, nearly 20 years before the start of WW1 had the nickname "oil maniac".

We may be at crossed purposes here. I've edited the quote you addressed for clarity.

I'm certainly skeptical enough to think it possible that, once we had 'control' of Iraq, the oil-fields became an important asset and I don't doubt that had some effect on policy, but do I think it even a possibility as a motivation for going to war [in Iraq in 2003] in the first place? Not a chance.

[boltonboris]

Energy security is obviously a 'big deal' in world affairs, but, like Pru, I do wonder where the directing mind is.

I mean, going to war to secure access to oil might well be very sensible utilitarian long-term thinking, but I don't see how it would advance the short-term reputational and electoral needs of politicians to proceed with that long game in mind.

In that scenario, they need only worry about 1 set of people.. Israeli citizens.

I imagine they have plenty of support from those people

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Energy security is obviously a 'big deal' in world affairs, but, like Pru, I do wonder where the directing mind is.

I mean, going to war to secure access to oil might well be very sensible utilitarian long-term thinking, but I don't see how it would advance the short-term reputational and electoral needs of politicians to proceed with that long game in mind.

In that scenario, they need only worry about 1 set of people.. Israeli citizens.

I imagine they have plenty of support from those people

Sorry, we've got a few discussions crossing here.

I was talking more generally and more in relation to Iraq than the 70 years of the Isreal-Palestine question.

[Lord Kangana]

Ah.

Ok. Well We'd still disagree on that, partly because the parties involved admitted to sexing up the documents (a tremendous admission in itself), but I suspect that the evidence needed to have an in depth discussion will not exist in the public domain - I suspect it will be covered by some 30/50/70/100 year rule. Hopefully I'll still be around to dance a jig with a bit of nerr-nerring when it does though!

[Prufrock]

Ah.

Ok. Well We'd still disagree on that, partly because the parties involved admitted to sexing up the documents (a tremendous admission in itself), but I suspect that the evidence needed to have an in depth discussion will not exist in the public domain - I suspect it will be covered by some 30/50/70/100 year rule. Hopefully I'll still be around to dance a jig with a bit of nerr-nerring when it does though!

The dossier question seems fairly easily explained to me. They expected to find he did have weapons of mass destruction (it's indisputable that he did have them - the people of Halabja didn't gass themselves) and when the evidence they wanted wasn't there, someone along the chain put it there. I can see how that might make people pause for thought, but it's certainly not evidence for any other, hidden interests. Occam's Razor is enough for me to be happy that this isn't evidence to show the reasons they gave weren't true. In fact, I'd hope that if it had been planned in advance -in that they never expected to find WMDs - then they'd have done a better fecking job of it, tbf.

None of that of course is to excuse the inexcusable in doing it.

Well, I hope you're still around when it all comes out, but I hope you're wrong. I'd much rather live in a world where the mess in Iraq is the unintended consequence of good intentions than one where it's an intended (or at least irrelevant) consequence of Machiavellian intentions of the big bad oil people.

[Lord Kangana]

Tony Blair's bloody Chief of Staff made him read The Prince!

Despite me thinking that him reading a 500 year old book is akin to those yahoos that think The Old Testament is literally the word of god, I think you're going to face huge disappointment if you believe politicians not to be Machiavellian!

[Lord Kangana]

Or oil people. Aswell.

[TANGODANCER]

Religion. It's all very much about religion.

no - it's not - not really.

Hmmm. Some different scenarios being discussed, but on this, we'll have to disagree. The subject is too vast and complicated to be defined in a post on here, and I'm making no statements about the rights and wrongs of it all, or wanting a major debate, but a couple of facts need considering:

Israel is a comparative newcomer to the area as a state. It only came into existence as such in 1948. As an area it is far from new and contains the holiest city on earth to three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism and all the places regarded as holy: Jerusalem, Nazareth, etc and the numerous biblical locations in the life of Christ including his birth place, where he lived and Calvary where he died. Things are so territorial that The Temple of the Holy Sepulchre is divided into no-go zones inside and people have been killed for setting foot in another's territory.

Since time immemorial (and more so since the birth of Christ 2000 years ago) Jerusalem has been a scene of constant and unceasing conflict and is still so today, from back in the time when oil was just used in lamps and for annointing and massaging. the Jews are far more serious and protective about their religion than many Christians in as much as it is absolutely governed by The Torah as are their beliefs and lifestyle. That many Israelies don't want war with Palestine is an indication of their sense of righteousness rather than pure territorial dominance. Given their totally land-locked geography, they don't really want war with anyone if they have any sense. Fish in a barrel springs to mind. Territory, energy provision and other factors may be involved. None of it would be quite the same but for the religious locations and history. The Jews want the Holy City and the surrounding territory as their historical promised land. ( The Islamic races occupied Andalusia (and most of Spain for a while) as their gift from Allah. It took the Spaniards 800 years to reclaim it. Some still believe they'll return there one day. ) To claim the Jews desire to own the area isn't primarily about religion is way wrong. It's their Biblical homeland.

I'll recommend a very comprehensive tome (which I really must return to WtW very soon with many apologies): Jerusalem, The Biography...by Simon Sebag Motefiorre, as a major reference to clarify these things. It explains it all far better than I can.

[thebish]

Religion. It's all very much about religion.

no - it's not - not really.

Hmmm. Some different scenarios being discussed, but on this, we'll have to disagree. The subject is too vast and complicated to be defined in a post on here, and I'm making no statements about the rights and wrongs of it all, or wanting a major debate, but...

there's always a but....

[Prufrock]

Tony Blair's bloody Chief of Staff made him read The Prince!

Despite me thinking that him reading a 500 year old book is akin to those yahoos that think The Old Testament is literally the word of god, I think you're going to face huge disappointment if you believe politicians not to be Machiavellian!

I meant in the literary sense, rather than the literal.

[TANGODANCER]

Religion. It's all very much about religion.

no - it's not - not really.

Hmmm. Some different scenarios being discussed, but on this, we'll have to disagree. The subject is too vast and complicated to be defined in a post on here, and I'm making no statements about the rights and wrongs of it all, or wanting a major debate, but...

there's always a but....

I really have no idea what that's supposed to mean?

[thebish]

Religion. It's all very much about religion.

no - it's not - not really.

Hmmm. Some different scenarios being discussed, but on this, we'll have to disagree. The subject is too vast and complicated to be defined in a post on here, and I'm making no statements about the rights and wrongs of it all, or wanting a major debate, but...

there's always a but....

I really have no idea what that's supposed to mean?

well - you say that we'll have to simply disagree - then that you want no debate - then go on to make the same point (only much longer) that I have already disagreed with!

[TANGODANCER]

there's always a but....

I really have no idea what that's supposed to mean?[/quote]

well - you say that we'll have to simply disagree - then that you want no debate - then go on to make the same point (only much longer) that I have already disagreed with!

In which case you might give some indication as to why you disagree. If you have a view, then state it instead of just yawning and flicking your cigar ash. You are but another opinion.

[thebish]

In which case you might give some indication as to why you disagree. If you have a view, then state it instead of just yawning and flicking your cigar ash. You are but another opinion.

there'd be no point as you already very clearly stated you don't want any debate!!

*(plus - earlier in the thread we already had this discussion where I stated my opinion at length!)