Question Time!

[GD]

Sure, but boy do I hate seeing the "Well Saddam was evil, he committed atrocities" hand constantly being played as some sort of trump. It's pure hypocrisy!

The world would be a lot more peaceful if we would only stop meddling. How many more blowbacks must we suffer before we stop banging our heads on that wall?

[Totally_Baffled]

Sure, but boy do I hate seeing the "Well Saddam was evil, he committed atrocities" hand constantly being played as some sort of trump. It's pure hypocrisy!

The world would be a lot more peaceful if we would only stop meddling. How many more blowbacks must we suffer before we stop banging our heads on that wall?

You are right - but the people that spout "Iraq was all about oil , the war was totally illegal" are also total hypocrites as they drive off in there SUV's , CARS, and living there lifestyles all fully subsidised by cheap oil (a large chunk of which comes from the ME!)

[GD]

A very good point, I agree.

A world I was born in to. The full, brutal reality of which shielded from my view for a long time.

Now I'm aware, I'm changing bit by bit, and moving away from it.

But, why does it need to be shielded from most people's view? Who gains?

[Totally_Baffled]

A very good point, I agree.

A world I was born in to. The full, brutal reality of which shielded from my view for a long time.

Now I'm aware, I'm changing bit by bit, and moving away from it.

But, why does it need to be shielded from most people's view? Who gains?

You are right!

It would of been an interesting debate pre Iraq , if the politicians were honest.

Maybe a referendum question/choice could of been:

"OK American/British people - our own energy resources are in decline - we need to have presence in the ME to secure our future energy resources or you have to give up your cars and lifestyle"

I bet they would of voted to invade (if they fully understood the situation anyway!)

[GD]

I bet they would of voted to invade (if they fully understood the situation anyway!)

I disagree with that one. I think the moral outrage that was expressed prior to the invasion (and even on last night's show) would indicate a shift to a new low-energy paradigm would be in favour because:

* Iraqi production isn't going to make much of a dent in PO (I don't think at least - we can debate this separately).
* For certain there is no choice in the long term.

[XENG]

My two questions were:

"Does the pannel support the view that the best way of reducing our impact on the climate is to reduce our consumption of energy?"

and

"Does the panel believe that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq might lead to lower petrol prices here?"

(Thanks Tess)

Neither got picked.

I was going to make a point on the Zarqawi and Iraq question along the lines of:

"I think the plan has always been to stay in Iraq to secure the oil in light of an imminent peak in global production".

However because panelists were squabbling too much Dimbleby moved on to new question before i got the chance.

Disappointing.

[GD]

Disappointing.

I bet. I thought the whole show was off mark, we've been having the discussion they should have had in here. I'd have had a job not screaming at them when they talked about the flag for so long.

Glad you made it alright. I'd like to go on one myself one day (when it's more convenient).

[Totally_Baffled]

I bet they would of voted to invade (if they fully understood the situation anyway!)

I disagree with that one. I think the moral outrage that was expressed prior to the invasion (and even on last night's show) would indicate a shift to a new low-energy paradigm would be in favour because:

* Iraqi production isn't going to make much of a dent in PO (I don't think at least - we can debate this separately).
* For certain there is no choice in the long term.

I guess we will never know! - but IMO the outrage was about:

1) Being lied to about WMD (and the farcical attempts to back up the lie)
2) The deaths/potential deaths of our troops and Iraqi civilians.
3) Cost

etc

Your points about Iraqi production doesn't qualify for me because its not only about Iraqi production , its about production in the entire region. The US/UK want bases in the ME to have an influence on 40% (and soon to be 60% - 70%) of the worlds production.

As for no choice - of course you are totally correct, but you could argue that makes even MORE important to be in the ME. If you are to increase the chances of even having the lower production in the future from the ME , you are going to need a presence there to guard facilities and quell instability etc.

[GD]

Your points about Iraqi production doesn't qualify for me because its not only about Iraqi production , its about production in the entire region. The US/UK want bases in the ME to have an influence on 40% (and soon to be 60% - 70%) of the worlds production.

As for no choice - of course you are totally correct, but you could argue that makes even MORE important to be in the ME. If you are to increase the chances of even having the lower production in the future from the ME , you are going to need a presence there to guard facilities and quell instability etc.

This, to me, is about clinging for dear life to a paradigm that is living on borrowed time. Trying to stay ahead in the global GDP rankings. That's what it boils down to, attempting to keep Chinese and Indian hands off "our" oil.

Only trouble there is, we live further away, and have managed to p*ss the locals off so much. Once we're past peak, it's hard to imagine affording to stay there. It will only get more and more difficult and expensive. Should it come down to conflict with the Far East (or proxy conflict) we're screwed. There can be no winners.

My argument is that Peak Oil will be bad enough without having to fund WW3.

The fact we're talking with Iran now about their nukes could be a signal that the neo-cons influence is thankfully diminishing.

[Totally_Baffled]

Your points about Iraqi production doesn't qualify for me because its not only about Iraqi production , its about production in the entire region. The US/UK want bases in the ME to have an influence on 40% (and soon to be 60% - 70%) of the worlds production.

As for no choice - of course you are totally correct, but you could argue that makes even MORE important to be in the ME. If you are to increase the chances of even having the lower production in the future from the ME , you are going to need a presence there to guard facilities and quell instability etc.

This, to me, is about clinging for dear life to a paradigm that is living on borrowed time. Trying to stay ahead in the global GDP rankings. That's what it boils down to, attempting to keep Chinese and Indian hands off "our" oil.

Only trouble there is, we live further away, and have managed to p*ss the locals off so much. Once we're past peak, it's hard to imagine affording to stay there. It will only get more and more difficult and expensive. Should it come down to conflict with the Far East (or proxy conflict) we're screwed. There can be no winners.

My argument is that Peak Oil will be bad enough without having to fund WW3.

The fact we're talking with Iran now about their nukes could be a signal that the neo-cons influence is thankfully diminishing.

Again I agree.

If we get any sort of conflict with Chindia , then its game over.

But even if we avoid that , I think we will end up with a military presence in the ME to "protect" oil facilities (even if they're in decline). There will be plenty of anti west factions/groups trying to blow them up! (already trying to do it now!)

Of course once production is past a certain point (ie exports are so low - its an energy sink net of military oil use) , then we will be out of there dont you worry!

The fact we're talking with Iran now about their nukes could be a signal that the neo-cons influence is thankfully diminishing.

I cannot tell you how much of a relief this is. We just need the republicans to get slaughtered in the next presidential and regional elections and wwe can stop worrying so much for a little while (on the resource wars front anyways!)

[GD]

But even if we avoid that , I think we will end up with a military presence in the ME to "protect" oil facilities (even if they're in decline). There will be plenty of anti west factions/groups trying to blow them up! (already trying to do it now!)

There's the point. It's going so badly, even now. The US had to get out of Saudi Arabia to prevent revolution. How much longer can we hang on?

Certainly, when property next tanks and brings our economy with it, there'll be a lot of angry people, with time on their hands, questioning the whole point of the exercise. It'll be interesting to see which way they go when they find out.

Ditto if one of those attacks slip through the net and hit a Saudi facility in the meantime.

[Totally_Baffled]

There's the point. It's going so badly, even now. The US had to get out of Saudi Arabia to prevent revolution. How much longer can we hang on?

Good point - but sadly I think once the "cat is out of the bag" post peak the US/UK government will target their protection of the oil facilities and to hell with everything else (and in some cases it maybe at the request of oil producing countries governments in the ME).

The major population centres could be very unpleasant indeed.

I wouldnt be suprised.

BTW, im not saying any of this is right - but I think its what may happen.

[GD]

It may indeed. I think the effect therefore would be intensification of attacks on facilities, quite simply.

Plus, the political backlash at home would be so great, we could see change of leadership quite rapidly. Which may well turn out to be a referendum on:

"OK American/British people - our own energy resources are in decline - we need to have presence in the ME to secure our future energy resources or you have to give up your cars and lifestyle"

But think of the implications for global stability, should the people vote for war like that.

[XENG]

But think of the implications for global stability, should the people vote for war like that.

Other counties would see it as a license to do the same and we would have WW3.

[newmac]

Just to jump back a bit...

Every arguement for brutally invading Iraq falls flat on its face. It is only not totally realised by the public due to the totally complicity in the media and lower level government not to discuss the issues including:

a) mitlitary support of Saddam prior to GW1 and during Iran Iraq war
b) Saddam death figures in Iraq - it is hard to find true figures (and you will notice that this is off agenda, and people only talk about "mass graves"). It appears that prior to GW1 the attoricities were a) in a civil war against the Kurds (similar to Turkey in the 1990s and supported with our weaponry) and incidents in the hundreds per year throughout Iraq. After GW1 the Shia uprising (after we told them to and then took all their heavy artillery away and left them high and dry) lead to estimates of around 40,000 killed.
c) Coalition death figures - GW1 - 250,000 estimate, GW2 (the slowly death through sanctions - estimates of 1,000,000), GW3 estimates a year ago of over 100,000. Grand total - 1,350,000.....and anyone who says they don't count as we didn't mean it can feck off.
d) Saddams reasons for invading Kuwait - crippling debt due to iran/iraq war, historic disagreements, sideways drilling, US giving the nod
e) civilian deaths due to coalition troops (the majority)
f) real figures of popular insurgent attacks (60 a day against coalition troops), and not just higlighted suicide bombers by the nutter element. i.e. a popular resistance.
f) building of permanent bases etc
g) sell off of Iraq, law changes, oil back in dollars
g) reasons for GW2 including, showing the world the US was willing to stand up to its new foreign policy, control of middle east, removal of troops from SA, payback for Daddy, injection into the military industrial complex, domestic policy disaster avoidance, oil traded in Euros....and a big one - the knowledge that after Iran Iraq war, GW1 and sanctions the Iraqi army couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

But then again, we British mean well and only do things for the right reasons.

Great, now I have got myself mad again on a Friday afternoon.