permalink for this thread :
captain_cookie Posted on 25/10 20:38
Appeasing Islam

the banks are to ban piggy banks as offensive to Moslems. Quite right, I say, and not before time. It could be the first step to saving our corrupt, decadent Western society from itself.
But wait. What if it's not enough? What if our Moslem guests still want to bomb the crap out of us despite these important measures? Perhaps we need to go further.
Any suggestions?
I say we must make it compulsory for ALL Britons to pray to Mecca 7 times a day, and that all women must wear Burquas (this could be sold as a beauty aid for some of them)
Any more ideas?

Eddie_Catflap Posted on 25/10 20:43
re: Appeasing Islam

Was this piggy bank thing you're on about from a couple of papers (Daily Star/Daily Express)?- did it mention Halifax bank? (there was something about this at work) they stopped having them in branches several years ago now to concentrate on Harold and all that other shitty advertising. The bank told them it was bollox but the papers went ahead and printed it anyway.

--- Post edited by Eddie_Catflap on 25/10 20:44 ---

BoroMint Posted on 25/10 20:44
re: Appeasing Islam

Ban the bacon sarnie I say

BillHicksBoro Posted on 25/10 20:54
re: Appeasing Islam

The piggy banks thing was too b*llsh*tty for the daily mail to print, and people believe it?

moxzin Posted on 25/10 21:04
re: Appeasing Islam

We should say "Peace be upon him" after every Boro player's name.

ie, It was a magnificent goal that the Prophet Queudrue (peace be upon him) scored.

Grumpy_Paul Posted on 26/10 0:28
re: Appeasing Islam

inshala Moxy, inshala

junk_yard_dog Posted on 26/10 0:45
re: Appeasing Islam

Two banks\building societites have decided to remove the word 'piggy bank' and images from their advertising literature.

It has not been struck from the English language.

It's only because scum like Star and Mail journos can make an easy living from it that you have even heard about it.

"this could be sold as a beauty aid for some of them" - C_C, give your head a shake...

captain_cookie Posted on 26/10 0:53
re: Appeasing Islam

Did I say it was being struck from the English language? Well, did I?
So junkie, are you saying that it's better if we hadn't been told about it, even when it's true?
As for the beauty aid bit, that was a joke. My apologies for daring to display a sense of humour on this board.
by the way it was in the Express and it's now travelled round the world (I read it 12,000 miles away) and it's making our country an even bigger joke. The locals think it's hilarious.

borojap Posted on 26/10 1:53
re: Appeasing Islam

Most stories about alleged "political correctness" are actually complete bollox, or if not then very seriously exaggerated or distorted.

Not really that surprising, as "p.c." was a concept invented by right-wing Americans intended to discredit their opponents. A damn good idea, you have to say, given how easily some people always fall for it.

br14 Posted on 26/10 2:17
re: Appeasing Islam

Are you sure about that Borojap? Or are you simply using the classic excuse of blaming American right wingers for all that is wrong in the world. (Maybe they are).

I thought it was just something to do with Chairman becoming Chairperson and a variety of other terms used in extremis to avoid giving offense to any recognised minority/majority that may be listening.

Weird thing is, that if Piggy Bank is being removed for the benefit of Islam, why wasnt it removed for the benefit of Jewish people.

borojap Posted on 26/10 2:23
re: Appeasing Islam

Yes, pretty much. Surprised you didn't know.

Eddie_Catflap Posted on 26/10 2:49
re: Appeasing Islam

It's complete lies.

Hardwickgeorge Posted on 26/10 8:20
re: Appeasing Islam

I have lived in the middle east for 6 years now.
Believe me....Muslims make little or no effort to accomodate Christians or westerners.

It is Ramadan at the moment and you can't smoke, eat, drink or chew in public. Why should I have their views imposed on me? Imagine the outcry if the boot was on the other foot?

Political correctness....Political Boll*x!
What has happend to the UK?

grantus Posted on 26/10 12:24
re: Appeasing Islam

I think that commen sense does seem to get lost from time to time. But we dont compare to the middle east because we are a democratic, multicultural, multinational society, where everyone is considered equal. As a result the government attempts to accomodate for all cultures, sometimes rightly in my mind, other times wrongly.

It is something to be proud of in general.

The thing not to be proud of is the English identity is almost lost now in the soup of Britishness. I dont know if its almost lost for good or not, but i suspect that it is. Its a shame as I think Englishness should be something to celebrate, as the Irish celebrate Irishness, as the Scottish celebrate being Scottish, we do not, we celebrate britishness really.

Hardwickgeorge Posted on 26/10 12:37
re: Appeasing Islam

I never say I am British anymore. I am English.
Islam is generally intolerent of other religions. I do not want islam imposed on me in any shape or form in the Middle East. Let alone in the UK. If that Piggy bank story is true....well it is a scandal....I like pigs anyway.

attonBORO Posted on 26/10 12:41
re: Appeasing Islam

i like pigs too and i like eating them! whats wromg with that? Should we all start eating sheeps eys and testacles?

grantus Posted on 26/10 12:44
re: Appeasing Islam

Whats the craic, since when did anyone say we wouldn't be able to eat pigs? You're just hamming it up now.

--- Post edited by grantus on 26/10 12:44 ---

gravy_boat Posted on 26/10 12:47
re: Appeasing Islam

The Piggy Bank story is a load of bollox. Its just that there are plenty of goons influenced enough by the inward looking, intolarable bull sh it spounted by The Express and others that it gets believed.

I think Grantus is close to the truth. Just because other cultures are less tolerant of others, why does it me we should be?

Isn't it a case of setting an example that there is a place for everybody in this country?

red_rebel Posted on 26/10 12:49
re: Appeasing Islam

Gasp! Shock horro! "They" have "banned" piggybanks/christmas/blackbags/the union jack.

It invariably turns out that no-one in power has banned anything at all and the storm is the creation of a paranoid little Englander press.

In this case a commercial concern sensitive to market conditions has chosen to not use a particular image that its focus groups have vaguely suggested may be subliminally negative to one of its potential audiences.

It is no different to a major food group deciding that a long running advert centred around the domestic tribulations of a dowdy dinner preparing mum and her family should be dropped. It doesn't mean "Oxo have sensationally banned the family unit".

speckyget Posted on 26/10 13:00
re: Appeasing Islam

Thereby chasing Lynda Bellingham off our screens. Happy now, PC Brigade???1

MrAngryCurrentlyInAberdeen Posted on 26/10 16:19
re: Appeasing Islam

Sorry about the old username, but leaving for foreign climes in a day or so, and my laptop is in the repair shop.

I am not in favour of appeasing anybody(as you might guess). Why should we appease Islam? Do we appease the Catholics, Portestants, or Hindus etc? Fcukemall if they can't take a joke.

Revol_Tees Posted on 26/10 17:14
re: Appeasing Islam

It was a total non-story, as r_r said. It's a classic example of the media spinning a story out of nowhere to make people angry about trivialities. When do you ever hear them whipping up a storm over the hundreds of racially motivated verbal and physical attacks against Muslims in Britain since 7/7? Almost never - apart from the odd one, to "prove" they're not racist - because Muslims are unpeople and the whole PC debate is an important smokescreen to hide what is really happening.

captain_cookie Posted on 26/10 20:31
re: Appeasing Islam

still haven't heard any good suggestions.
Come on lads, we really need to work on this. We've got to prove to our Moslem brothers just how sorry we are for being richer and more civilised than them.
How about we change the name of Christmas to Mohammedmas?

riverboat_captain Posted on 26/10 20:42
re: Appeasing Islam

Yes, it's a total non story but it does prompt people to say things like "What if our Moslem guests still want to bomb the crap out of us despite these important measures? Perhaps we need to go further."

And so the untruths grow deeper and wider, allowing the tabloids to justify themselves.

squarewheelbike Posted on 26/10 21:23
re: Appeasing Islam

Just another made up story, for people of low intelligence to get irate about. As already pointed out the so called "PC Brigade" is a right wing media invention. The only thing tabloid papers care about is selling more papers, and the journo who made it upprobably got a nice bonus for his lies!

captain_cookie Posted on 26/10 21:30
re: Appeasing Islam

you're right of course Riverboat. those London bombs were all the fault of the pesky tabloids. I stand corrected.

riverboat_captain Posted on 26/10 21:49
re: Appeasing Islam

Re-read your first post. I don't know what the Moslem population of the UK is, but you didn't discount any of them. As I said, tabloids are spreading distrust and that is the last thing we need in this country.

albo87 Posted on 26/10 21:58
re: Appeasing Islam

Don't try that captain cookie - you didn't start this thread with a comment about the London bombs - you made it with a brainless post about Muslims being offended by piggy banks.

Never mind the press - ask yourself - do you know of one Muslim person who has said thay are offended by piggy banks? Just one? No, and that's not just because you probably never talk to any. It's because there aren't any. It's a heap of shi_te, created by lying journalists to fuel hatred and resentment of Muslims. Thankfully, it only works on the brain dead.

Do you really want an intelligent discussion about the London bombs? If you do, then so do I, but only if you accept that all Muslims shouldn't be tainted just because those who bombed London happened to be Muslim, just as all white Britons shouldn't be tainted just because Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe and Tony Blair have killed many.

moxzin Posted on 26/10 22:14
re: Appeasing Islam

Tony Blair Do you actually believe this stuff that you come out with?

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 22:15
re: Appeasing Islam

That coming from someone who believes in a supreme omnipotent being.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 26/10 22:16 ---

moxzin Posted on 26/10 22:17
re: Appeasing Islam

I'm asking a simple question. Does he/she/it think that it is right to compare Tony Blair to real mass murderers, on the back of a political disagreement?

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 22:18
re: Appeasing Islam

Blair is a mass murderer. What's the problem?

albo87 Posted on 26/10 22:18
re: Appeasing Islam

Well, who do you hold responsible for the 100,000+ deaths in Iraq, and an uncounted number in Afghanistan, since Bush and Blair launched the war on terror, Mox?

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 22:19
re: Appeasing Islam

Oh dear albo. The 100,000 deaths.

I declare this can of worms well and truly open.

I'm going to fill my glass. This could be a long night.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 26/10 22:21 ---

moxzin Posted on 26/10 22:27
re: Appeasing Islam

I'm not in for the long haul because I'm dead on my feet, but I can't believe you can compare a leader who takes his nation to war with the backing of Parliament, and who received a subsequent re-election, against firstly: a medieval, appalling regime that was harbouring direct threats to our citizens and our allies and secondly, a murderous dictator threatening the region and the world; a mass murderer, when clearly he is nothing of the sort. He is a leader who faced two problems after 9/11, Agfhanistan and Iraq, and came out with two definite solutions, instead of hoping they would go away. But to compare the leader of a nation of, what was and is, a popular war, to real people who really went out to really murder, is Kanye West hysterical bordering on unbalance. IMO.

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 22:31
re: Appeasing Islam

"leader who takes his nation to war with the backing of Parliament" - but only because he lied.

"a medieval, appalling regime that was harbouring direct threats to our citizens and our allies" - first part true, where are the WMD?

"a murderous dictator threatening the region and the world" - first part right, but again, where are these WMD?

"what was and is, a popular war" - now this takes the biscuit. Are you serious?

Come on, mox. You can do better than that.

albo87 Posted on 26/10 22:36
re: Appeasing Islam

That's where you and I differ, Mox. I don't rate people's actions more or less worthy if they are carried out on behalf of a state.

If the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, Bush and Blair are responsible for the thousands upon thousands of murdered people in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are personally responsible, and should be tried for mass murder.

Even worse than Bin Laden, they lied about their intentions - pretending it was to save us from WMD, when really it was to steal oil. They are nothing more than armed robbers and mass murderers.

I don't make any moral distinction between them and terrorists. War is just terrorism with a bigger budget.

MrAngryCurrentlyInAberdeen Posted on 26/10 22:37
re: Appeasing Islam

Why not have a go at the Baptists?

A bloke called Jim Phelps runs a right wing group in the US called the Westboro Baptist Church, and he was recently quoted as saying he wished millions of Brits had died in the July bombings. Sounds a good enough reason to string him up!

Lefty3668 Posted on 26/10 22:40
re: Appeasing Islam

Why did he say that MrAngry?

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 22:41
re: Appeasing Islam

Probably so we'd hate the goddam towel-heads more.

bernie_up_front_7 Posted on 26/10 22:44
re: Appeasing Islam

"what was and is, a popular war" - now this takes the biscuit. Are you serious?

Gets my vote. Ask the Iraqi's who otherwise would have been killed under SH.

Revol_Tees Posted on 26/10 22:44
re: Appeasing Islam

"what was and is, a popular war" Do you actually believe this stuff that you come out with? You should write down that little gem and put it in a Christmas cracker.

moxzin Posted on 26/10 22:45
re: Appeasing Islam

albo, I don't believe for a minute that the war was about stealing oil.

Believe me, if I did, I would be standing alongside you and shouting with the best of them.

But I sincerely don't believe it. I believe it was part of a wider PNAC agenda, but this was to bring about a strong democratic Iraqi republic and to remove a potential threat, rather than any economic profit.

War must be one of the most expensive activities in the world, and America would much sooner connive and diplomaticize to get at the oil rather than spend a f-load of money to topple a militaristic regime.

The war in Iraq will run into tens if not hundreds of billions, do you really think that cost would be recovered by oil or the building of new compounds? Does America need the oil that badly? Why didn't they choose Saudi, with more oil, or Iran?

This wasn't about oil, and it wasn't about contracts. It was about threats and a decision that enough was enough and this country needed to be saved. A noble cause, and if civilians have died, it is the fault of Saddam Hussein who precipated the war, and the satanic insurgents (or brave resistors) who are perpetuating it.

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 22:46
re: Appeasing Islam

Yes, bernie. Ask all those Iraqis who want our forces out of there.

And mox, the PNAC's agenda was to secure American interests in the Middle East by "introducing" democracy. American interests that include securing the oil supplies.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 26/10 22:48 ---

moxzin Posted on 26/10 22:47
re: Appeasing Islam

Following the re-election of Tony Blair and the distinct lack of antiwar activity in this country since 2003, I think the burden of proof lies with the antiwar lobby as to how they think this war is somehow UNpopular.

albo87 Posted on 26/10 22:47
re: Appeasing Islam

Which Iraqis should we ask, Bernie up front? The 95% who oppose the US/UK occupation?

Don't believe the propaganda - remember this thread started with an idiot believing that Muslims had a problem with piggy banks.

bernie_up_front_7 Posted on 26/10 22:49
re: Appeasing Islam

In the forces Jimmy. Been there Jimmy. R Signals Jimmy.

Couldnt be speaking to a better bloke Jimmy.

Lefty3668 Posted on 26/10 22:51
re: Appeasing Islam

Iraq was targetted because it was weak, not because it was a threat.

moxzin Posted on 26/10 22:51
re: Appeasing Islam

Or the 10 million who voted on the new constitution, with 78% approval... Ask them, clearly they don't mind being asked about how they are governeed, after all, its nice to have a choice..

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 22:52
re: Appeasing Islam

I take my hat off to you, but it doesn't change the fact that most Iraqis don't want an occupying force there.
My Dad was in the Signals. He thinks we shouldn't be there.

As Patrick Cockburn said in today's Independent:
What use is a constitution when there is no state?

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 26/10 22:54 ---

albo87 Posted on 26/10 22:53
re: Appeasing Islam

I must admit, you've got a point there, Mox. There's been much less anti-war than pro-war activity since 2003. Mind you, all the pro-war activity has been carried out by people with bombs and guns, and a handful of pro-war journalists.

But don't discount the anti-war activity - we haven't quite reached the 2 million demonstrators of Feb 2003, but there've been several demos of 10s of 1000s. And we got an MP to the left of Labout elected. This is just the beginning. It took many years for the anti-Vietnam war movement to reach anywhere near the levels the anti-Iraq war movement is already at.

Watch us go if they try to invade Iran or Syria.

moxzin Posted on 26/10 22:56
re: Appeasing Islam

Interesting in how you have respect for Galloway, in light of recent allegations. Bit rich to accuse others of financial agendas with regards to Iraq isn't it, all being true?

bernie_up_front_7 Posted on 26/10 22:57
re: Appeasing Islam

Jimmmy, the thing is, all you see on the telly is iraqi's that are unhappy with british and US troops (the yanks are crap like) cos it makes good telly.

They dont want to show you iraqi's coming up and shaking your hand, thanking you that your prescense has saved their lives.

It was exactly the same in Bosnia. Nobody's interested in all of the positive stuff that goes on.

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 23:00
re: Appeasing Islam

OK. Getting rid of SH was a good thing, but the way it was done was wrong. The US and UK governments were warned about the consequences but chose to ignore them, and now they are going to have to live with the consequences for a generation.

Revol_Tees Posted on 26/10 23:01
re: Appeasing Islam

Even Tony Blair and his New Labour lackeys have conceded (time and time again) that the decision to go to war was "unpopular." If you tried to argue with practically any government official or civil servant in the dark corridors of Whitehall that the Iraq war was popular, they would laugh themselves stupid and then congratulate you on your wicked sense of humour.

albo87 Posted on 26/10 23:02
re: Appeasing Islam

You just get funnier and funnier, Mox!

I remember posting for a joke about a year ago that you were secretly a leftie - but just posted right-wing crap to open the door for left-wing replies. After reading this thread I don't see it as a joke any more.

First you say the Iraq war is popular - it's about as popular as the plague, and now you voice the Telegraph/Government/US Senate lies about Galloway. These allegations, based on known forgeries, are a laughing stock (the Telegraph have already lost a libel case over them) - and were only ever raised to discredit a leading member of the anti-war movement. They were only resurrected yesterday to deflect some attention from the 2000th US soldier being killed in Iraq.

Mox, I salute you. You tee 'em up, and I'll knock 'em in.

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 23:07
re: Appeasing Islam

The invasion of Iraq was a complete stich-up. The decision to invade was made in 2002. The day after 9-11, Bush was telling his staff to "find" links between AQ and Iraq. There was a great quote in an extract from Al Franken's new book (The Truth With Jokes) the other day. Someone said that invading Iraq after 9/11 was like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbour.

moxzin Posted on 26/10 23:08
re: Appeasing Islam

albo Very modest aren't you? I very much doubt the US Senate deals in forgeries, this would have been an absolute watertight case before they went ahead. Galloway's arrogance (what is it about left wingers and arrogance?) could yet be too soon.

And yes I am secretly a lefty. I actually long for the days when the revolution starts and the iron curtain descends over Britain. Purges, famine, genocide, secret police and endless conflict in the name of Workers Paradise. Bring it on! Much better than living in a country where we have a mass murderer in charge. Give us Uncle Joe instead!

--- Post edited by moxzin on 26/10 23:09 ---

elnino Posted on 26/10 23:08
re: Appeasing Islam

So why is it when you speak to the man on the street, most people back the war?

And they do, just go around asking. Only when in group situations do people normally back down, so as to apear on of the gang.

Having not read all this thread, I cannot be bothered, I agree with the point made. The PC ness of this country is apalling.

moxzin Posted on 26/10 23:10
re: Appeasing Islam

LJ I'm sure it was that great intellectual Jeremy Clarkson who said that.

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 23:14
re: Appeasing Islam

Just roll out the Stalin jibes when the going gets tough. That's a common trick. As if socialism and left-wing ideals themself lead to power corrupting and a madman killing millions. Complete and utter bollox. Just keep living in your dream world where you trust your government. I'm sure you'll be fine. Meanwhile, our liberties are eroded more and more and dissent is stamped down. Incitement to religious hatred? 7 years inside. Glorifying terrorism? 7 years inside. Don't worry about the mythical PC brigade. Your "elected" powers will see to it that you can't say squat.

And it was Richard Clarke, not Clarkson. If he said it, he heard it somewhere else.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 26/10 23:19 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 26/10 23:27
re: Appeasing Islam

Out of interest Little J, why do you think that Blair went into Iraq?

As opposed to 'why did the Yanks go in', I mean.

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 23:32
re: Appeasing Islam

Because he said he'd stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the USA. He didn't have big enough gojones to say no.

Lefty3668 Posted on 26/10 23:33
re: Appeasing Islam

You don't think he genuinely believed there was a WMD threat then?

littlejimmy Posted on 26/10 23:39
re: Appeasing Islam

I can't be 100% sure. If he did, he was badly advised. But my instincts are that he went along with the US out of misplaced loyalty, and they knew they were on dodgy ground. There are minutes to meetings and memos that prove that the decision to go to war was made at Downing Street many months before the invasion. They just had to backfit the evidence to make a case for war.

Revol_Tees Posted on 26/10 23:57
re: Appeasing Islam

It's quite well established that Blair's allies in government were haranguing the intelligence services to come up with "evidence" but they couldn't really do it because there was no immediate threat. So I'm not sure Blair could really have believed there were WMD in Iraq, and I do think he lied and misled us about that. But I think, to some extent, Blair is driven by a misguided and crusading "moral" approach to Iraq, which means he's able to convince himself that anything is worth it and that the ends justify the means. It clouds his judgement about what the ends really are. And you just cannot appoint yourself as judge, jury and executor on the worldstage, because what does that make you? It's back to the 19th century and the "empire of good intentions". Not that it's ever been any different, but it's a very obvious example of how Britain and the US haven't really moved along much at all, and that they don't really believe in world democracy and the rule of law. As for the United States, there were undoubtedly more overt strategic and economic concerns. (I'm sure there were in the Foreign Office too). Again, I don't think they even lie about it. When they say that the Middle East is an area of "strategic interest" (one of their favourite buzz words), what are they talking about? They're talking about economic resources and the extent to which they control them. Check out the American Enterprise Institute website, an NGO with direct links to the Bush administration and his financial backers. They're really open about it all, most of the time. (

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 27/10 0:10 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 0:09
re: Appeasing Islam

Despite my natural cynicism I always thought he sincerely believed there was WMD.

Mind you I don't doubt he also thought it would be a good thing to get rid of Saddam and get a democracy in place in the Middle East and that it was a good thing for Britain to stand alongside America as well.

My hunch has been reinforced by people like Mandela, Bono, Geldof who have all said, having talked to Blair about it, that they think he was making genuine mistake.

I recently read Piers Morgans book which just reinforced this to me. In fact it comes across that Brown, Blunkett, Straw, Mandelson and even Alistair Campbell were all convinced of a WMD threat too.

I could be wrong but I think that the subsiding of antiwar feeling is because most people like me think that Blair was duped by the Americans, that he has eventually more or less admitted he was wrong and that he will be stepping down soon anyway.

But I doubt the anti war feeling and anger towards the Americans has subsided at all.

Revol_Tees Posted on 27/10 0:22
re: Appeasing Islam

I can see what you're saying lefty ... but a general point about Blair, I think, is that he manages to convince himself that he's right about everything, no matter what the facts are or whatever his party's opinions are. I really don't think he was duped by anyone other than himself (and his arrselickers). We've seen it time and time again. This is a man with absolutely no links to the Labour movement, personally or ideologically, yet this public school right-winger was appointed Labour leader because he looked young and he somehow had the rhetoric to make Thatcherite policies sound socially responsible. But hey, he was convincing. He convinced himself and the electorate.

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 0:46
re: Appeasing Islam

Oh dear,

I can see I might end up sounding like an apologist for TB here.

I agree with virtually everything you say, especially

'Blair is driven by a misguided and crusading "moral" approach to Iraq, which means he's able to convince himself that anything is worth it and that the ends justify the means. It clouds his judgement about what the ends really are. And you just cannot appoint yourself as judge, jury and executor on the worldstage'

Absolutely. I think he got carried away with his success over Northern Ireland.

That he seems convinced he is right about everything I also agree with. He has now, or at least prior to the WMD fiasco, grown arrogant. The only thing I will say is that you do need a leader with conviction. Wishy washy leaders achieve nothing.

But I disagree that he is a Thatcherite. Completely disagree.

In fact I think he is a socialist. I think though that he follows a lot of the policies that cowface employed regarding the economy, though with important differences, and within that framework he tries to do introduce socialist measures.

There are a lot of people who were basically trodden into the dirt and not given a toss about under Thatcher that are better off under Blair.

Revol_Tees Posted on 27/10 0:56
re: Appeasing Islam

To be honest, lefty, I can see where you're coming from. It's hard to describe what I think Blair's position is, especially at this late hour . Although he's definitely no socialist, I do think he's more like some old Victorian Liberal who operates, as you say, within a Thatcherite framework. Blair once said that he counted Lloyd George as one of his heroes, which is quite logical I suppose. He reminds me more of Ramsay McDonald. But having followed two decades of unashamedly uncaring Thatcherism, New Labour have added a human touch, albeit far from socialist and not nearly good enough in my humble opinion. My biggest problem with them is that they could so so much more, but they just don't even try...

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 27/10 0:58 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 1:13
re: Appeasing Islam

Well, I probably don't really know what a socialist is.

Grumpy_Paul Posted on 27/10 1:23
re: Appeasing Islam

First of all, it's lost on so many people on this board that the Iraq war (second) was not caused by the lies of Blair and Bush. Saddam was a victim of the success of his own propaganda. I think that Blair and Bush may have exaggerated the percieved threat to assist in gaining political backing but actually believed a threat existed.

Secondly, the West are good at winning campaigns but not very good at sorting the aftermath. We are too soft with the real baddies yet the mavericks of our forces are propaganda gold for the opposition.

Third, to the point of the original post.
It's really simple, respect the cultural and religious rights of British Muslims but if they cannot cope with our culture and religion they are welcome to return to their Utopia in Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran, etc, etc.
Over the years I have had association and friendship with people from a greatly varied background and have the opinion that for the most part it's the person that matters not the background

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 1:47
re: Appeasing Islam

Grumpy Paul,

come on now

'victim of the success of his own propaganda'. Yes he had such a credible minister in charge of that area didn't he?

It didn't fool the UN or majority of the world.

The war had to happen because American economic policy dictated it. It is about oil for them. Oil is running out the world over.

Grumpy_Paul Posted on 27/10 1:56
re: Appeasing Islam

He was'nt in cahrge of propaganda, he was just a lackey given a nominal position. Saddam was in control.

As for the UN position, even if they were 100% correct would you have total faith in them given their history.

Bosnia if you doubt my meaning.

AS a leader of a nation you have to assess your available information, make a judgement on it's validity then make your decision. Not easy in this world of miss information.

To those who accuse west of being responsible for thousands of deaths, I ask, how many thousands more would have died if Saddam was allowed to continue. And what other consequences would have to be dealt with.

Some on here just take pleasure in critisising USA and GB.

I have no illusions, we're not perfect but FFS

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 2:55
re: Appeasing Islam

It was tongue in cheek about comical ali.

Fair point about the UN too. They all have their own agenda I know.

But this war was about oil: oil prices and oil reserves.

Globally, Oil is traded in $.

The war happened shortly after Iraq changed to trading its oil in euro's rather than dollars.

America cannot afford the world to stop trading in dollars because it would bankrupt them - their trade deficit is almost unmanageable as it is.

Iraq was first but now is back to dollars.

Do you know which country was considering becoming the second oil producing nation to do so?


Who else has linked their currency to the euro rather than the dollar in the last two years?

North Korea.

Axis of evil anyone?

And Oil Reserves will be running out fast in the course of the next generation or so.

In exchange for its democracy Iraq have given the USA 14 permanent bases.

Hardwickgeorge Posted on 27/10 4:26
re: Appeasing Islam

The Americans/Brits must have known that by deposing SH they would be creating the Shiite crescent, incorporating Iraq Iran and Syria. A very dangerous situation now looms. To a certain extent having SH in power kept the region relatively stable. Uniting Iran and Iraq (religiously) is not good.

Just a point about the piggy bank story....If anyone has ever lived in an Islamic state you will know how paranoid they are about anything christian. e.g. no crosses the extent that a letter T can be perceived as looking like a cross and would have to be changed to another font etc. So yes, I could believe that certain muslims would be offended by a piggy bank.

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 4:47
re: Appeasing Islam

Which state did you live in?

Hardwickgeorge Posted on 27/10 4:54
re: Appeasing Islam


red_rebel Posted on 27/10 8:18
re: Appeasing Islam

Those interested in the pivotal position of oil in US foreign policy may fancy a quick scan through this piece written before the war. It is a brief over-view of the state of world reserves and how it effects US thinking.

Link: A geologist writes

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 9:59
re: Appeasing Islam

It's a bleak outlook.

zaphod Posted on 27/10 11:48
re: Appeasing Islam

I seem to remember that the US more or less admitted they had been conned over WMDs by the Iraqi opposition in exile when they withdrew their backing for their favoured Iraqi Presidential candidate over a year ago. Mind you, I fail to see how they could be conned, when I personally wasn't conned just from reading the press. It makes me wonder about the competence of our intelligence services (cue Arthur Mullard).

I don't think anti-Iraq-war feeling has really died down. It led to Labour only getting about 36% (a record low for a winning party) in the General Election despite success in most other areas of Government and despite a crap opposition. Anti-war and troops-out are not the same in my book. I opposed the war, but think it would compound the error to just walk away from the consequences.

It's natural for the Iraqis to oppose the occupation; it's impossible for an occupying force to be popular as it offends national pride.

moxzin Posted on 27/10 14:38
re: Appeasing Islam

Lefty, I think your euro/dollar rule is proved wrong by the fact that Russia is increasingly changing its reserves into Euro's, and this is coinciding with the best US-Russia relations for decades.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 27/10 15:00
re: Appeasing Islam

albo87 you really do talk some shoite, and to equate Blair with the mass murders that you have is pretty juvenile.

Anyway carry on with the Stalinist view of life, you know it makes sense. Lenin now there was a man, didn't have a clue on the habits of the human being, but a man all the same.

BTW I think I will keep my piggy bank.

borojap Posted on 27/10 15:07
re: Appeasing Islam

The present Russia may have better relations with the US than the previous Soviet Union did, but anyone who thinks that Russia and the US are getting along wonderfully well is missing an awful lot. They've taken opposite or at least very different sides in many issues.

green_beret20 Posted on 27/10 15:24
re: Appeasing Islam

The simpsons seem to manage it.

(Note: The video is fine but theres a few dodgy pictures in the link, best not risk it at work)

Link: Simpsons

Eddie_Catflap Posted on 27/10 15:35
re: Appeasing Islam

Omar Shamshoom

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 16:11
re: Appeasing Islam

Oops, just re read my last post and saw I cocked up. It is Afghanistan not Iraq that has the 14 permanent US bases - well it has a pipeline to protect.

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 27/10 16:12 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 16:20
re: Appeasing Islam


Re the intelligence services and the being duped. I think the Yanks probably did expect to find some WMD.I would with that sneaky fcuker Saddam. Any allegations by the iraqi exiles would just add weight to those expectations.

The thing is I think that as far as America is concerned it was not the REASON for the war anyway. However, it dresses up nicely as a good reason.

Lefty3668 Posted on 27/10 17:50
re: Appeasing Islam


I will have a look at what you say about Russia and the Euro's.

However it isn't really the point. America wouldn't be able to do to Russia what it did to Iraq anyway.

The point of the second gulf war - the reason it happened when it did - is because of Iraq changing to trading its oil in Euro's.

Following the first Gulf War, Iraq could only obtain goods by trading oil for them via the UN. Shortly before the war the Iraqi's went to the UN and said 'can we trade in Euro's rather than dollars' and the UN said 'well you can, but everyone trades in dollars, are you sure you want to because with the values of the respective currencies at the moment you will be even worse off than you are now.'

But they did it and then the Euro grew and became as strong as the dollar. There were then rumours that Iran was going to change too. America had to act and fast.

Did it not strike you as strange how quickly the whole 'Saddam's developed WMD's' suddenly became an urgent issue? Looking back, it does to me. Then of course they were keen to push it through the UN and when that didn't happen, they went in anyway.

Now, how to justify it? Well that Saddam is a bad chap. That Osama is a bad chap as well. Theres the link! Now what does Saddam like to do. Ah yes, kill lots of his own people, use biological weapons, fire scuds. So thats WMD's fired by rockets.Perfect!

So they go in and bomb the crap out of them to demonstrate to other countries what can happen to those who don't toe the line.

For good PR they find a few saps to go in with them. by continuing the war on terror - 9/11 was terrible wasn't it - those damn sneaky Germans, Russians and French only oppose us because they have been sneakily avoiding the UN embargo's.

And the beauty is that the country they are attacking is so weak a) because of the first gulf war and b) because the population was starving and lacking everything due to the restrictions on trade resulting from the war, that there shouldn't be too many of those nasty pictures of bodybags coming back.

littlejimmy Posted on 27/10 22:16
re: Appeasing Islam

Blot - All lefties love Stalin? Just like all right-wingers love Hitler. We can do lazy puerile name-calling as well.

red_rebel Posted on 27/10 22:37
re: Appeasing Islam

The dodgy intelligence from 'defectors' was manufactured cynically by the CIA and it was done to order.

Th eguy at the center of it all was Ahmed Chalibi. He was Iraqi but left in the early seventies then went on to becomne quite a successful fraudster before fleeing to America when the Jordanian police were after him for a multi-million poud scam.

He becme involved with US oil interets andfrom there the CIA. The CIA funded him to set up the Iraqi Information Network. Ithas been revealed in Congress that over a five year period he had been paid $4m by Uncle Sam to run his disinformation service.

He became a well known figure among US foreign policy wonks. He met Rumsfeld and briefed him on Iraq, basically telling the neo-cons anything they wanted to hear.

Despit ebeing paid very generously for information it was only when the US were stepping up preparation for war that he remembered that Iraqi had a secret nukes programme and had tried to buy 'yellow uranium' from Niger.

That was the smoking gun Washington wanted. It was widely leaked to the press and established as fact. It later came out in the Hutton inquiry that MI5 knew th edocuments were false and told the CIA but it was not what they wanted to hear.

Chalibi was installed as Iraqi president elect by George despite not having any any political pedigree in either Iraq or the exile communities.

That is until the inquiries into 'sexing' up started on both sides of the Atlantic. His house was raided by the CIA, his organisation disbanded and the IRS was on hiscase. Hehas mysteriously gone silent now after he was threatened with deportation to Jordan.

Things like this happen all the time. Itis about manufacturing consent. "A senior Iraqi told us" is enough for the press to print any old bollox without verification.

The US did exactly the same with Afghanistan where Kharzai was installed as president despite not having stepped foot in the country for 25 years. Hehad howvere worked for a CIA backed exiled network (stop me if you've heard it before) and also as an advisor to Exxon oil corporation.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 28/10 9:56
re: Appeasing Islam

Bad night Jimmy?, why didn't you comment on the inclusion of Blair with the list of multiple murderers?

As for Stalin and his ilk, its the only way of enforcing the lefts agenda. You and Red can shout until the cows come home the reality is that only capitalism works, hopefully with a large swathe of social engineering. In my niave view the UK is as close to the best system available as we will get.

Anyway good morning, and without Blair and the destruction of Clause 4 we would still have a Tory government.

littlejimmy Posted on 28/10 10:18
re: Appeasing Islam

We still have a Tory government. We've all been taken for a ride.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 28/10 10:29
re: Appeasing Islam

Almost full employment, a national minimum wage, low inflation, low interest rates, highest public spending per capida ever, highest tax take, which of these policies do you disagree with?

littlejimmy Posted on 28/10 10:35
re: Appeasing Islam

Tra-la-la. All is wonderful in the New Labour Garden. Let's just ignore the lies and deceit that took us into an illegal war. Let's ignore their increasingly authoritarian stance. Let's ignore the deeply ingrained corruption at the dark heart of politics. You're becoming a Blair Ra-ra, blot. Oh, well. Ignorance is Strength.

Bernard_Samson Posted on 28/10 10:36
re: Appeasing Islam

Red_Rebel Re Chalabi, the CIA like MI5 never trusted him, it was the defence department (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et al.) that pushed him forward. Even the funding for his umbrella group the INC (Iraqi National Congress) came direct from Washington not via Langley.

After the election he is know interim minister for oil and a deputy prime minister in Iraq. He managed this despite being dumped by the US adminstration and Washington cutting off the funding to the INC in mid 2004 and being investiagted for fraud and various other crimes. There are even rumours going around that Chalabi and ”Curveball” are/where working for Iran to get the US to elminate Saddam for them!!

blotonthelandscape Posted on 28/10 10:59
re: Appeasing Islam

Which policies do you disagree with? The Mail would of slaughtered him if they were not fact.

You obviously disagree with the almost 80% of Iraq's who recently voted for their constitution, but who are they to judge, when the left including Galloway over here in the West were happier when Saddam looked after them.

littlejimmy Posted on 28/10 11:10
re: Appeasing Islam

Anything can be spun.
What about the higher public borrowing? What about the higher taxes? What about the higher violent crime?

And again, you resort to ridiculous extremes to validate your position. So they've got a "constitution". It isn't much use when they haven't even got a country to speak of. I've yet to see anyone on here say that they want Saddam back or even wanted him to stay in power. It was the reason for (oil) and manner of his removal (illegal invasion) that we have a problem with. And what about the fact that the US was Saddam's friend until he got a bit rowdy and started on Kuwait (another oil rich nation)? What about all the weaponry that was supplied to him by Western governments? What about they way the US administration turned a blind eye while he violently stamped down on popular uprisings? But why bother with the facts when you've already made your mind up?
Oh, and capitalism works, but it works for the few at the expense of the many. But as long as we're alright, eh?

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 28/10 11:11 ---

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 28/10 11:15 ---

blotonthelandscape Posted on 28/10 11:19
re: Appeasing Islam

What about the higher public borrowing? Good its gone on public spending, What about the higher taxes? Very Good I'm all for it, What about the higher violent crime? Not good. I'm sure the Tories have some good ideas on that one. Who's the Tory now?

Where does Communism work?, China, 15000 executions last year they have admited to, North Korea? no news is good news, Cuba why are the Cubans on rafts on thier way to Satan?

Bernard_Samson Posted on 28/10 11:22
re: Appeasing Islam

To be fair to the US during the Iran/Iraq war they did not provide many weaposn to Saddam it was mainly funds (to buy French and Russian weapons) and intellegence. The US adminstration was of course to busy supplying Iran with weapons to send them to Iraq.

littlejimmy Posted on 28/10 11:24
re: Appeasing Islam

I'm a Tory because I mentioned crime? Great logic! And I believe in the model of communism they use in China because I don't believe in pure capitalism. Excellent stuff. What next - I don't support the Boro because I criticise SMAC sometimes?

blotonthelandscape Posted on 28/10 11:28
re: Appeasing Islam

I thought you mentioned high taxation and public borrowing, my head must be spinning.

OK then where has socialism worked? mixed capitalism is the only answer. If I work harder than you I want more money than you, and expect to pay more tax than you, its not difficult

littlejimmy Posted on 28/10 11:34
re: Appeasing Islam

I was trying to appeal to the latent Tory in you.
But you know what, I probably agree with you on most things. Yes, mixed capitalism is probably the optimum system, but it's far from perfect. I don't think it's as black and white as working hard and getting your dues.

This argument only came about because of our disagreement over the Iraq war, and you'll never convince me that the war was right. For all that this goverment has done right, it is doing much more damage with its support for a fundamentalist Christain regime and its continuing eroision of our civil liberties.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 28/10 11:40 ---

riverboat_captain Posted on 28/10 11:36
re: Appeasing Islam

Blot: "Almost full employment, a national minimum wage, low inflation, low interest rates, highest public spending per capida ever, highest tax take, which of these policies do you disagree with?"

Why should anybody be forced to judge Tony Blair's Labour party on your set of paramiters?

How about creeping privatisation of the health service?

Removal of education from local government control, and the introduction of academies which cost 5 times as much to run, and benefitting the middle classes who can better exploit them.

Splitting up and privatisation of London Underground causing a bureaucratic nightmare so that it takes months of toing and froing between rail providers and rolling stock companies to plan a little maintenance?

What about the gradual erosion of our basic freedoms?

Which ones do you agree with?

littlejimmy Posted on 28/10 11:38
re: Appeasing Islam

Not to mention University Top-up Fees.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 28/10 11:45
re: Appeasing Islam

University top up fees is fundementaly wrong. However my son goes to Eton, I have paid £30,000 a year for 15 years I get him into Oxbridge then I expect free education just like the lad at Teesside University from Grove Hill with a single mother, thats fair and just.

As for opening up the health service, if I break my leg I don't care if its the Nuffield or Captain Cooks who puts it right as long as its free at the point of service.

My wife works in a school in a very deprived area, she's very impressed with the level of teaching, moral support and the attitude of both children and teachers, nowt wrong there.

Which basic freedom have I lost? my life style hasn't changed, I have never been brought to book for something I have never done, I walk around London and the North East without hinderance, I fly to any country I want, my kids go the school and uni they want, I work where I want, I vote for who want to, I watch any sport I want, maybe if I was photographed with a known terrorist subject my life might change.

--- Post edited by blotonthelandscape on 28/10 11:51 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 28/10 12:40
re: Appeasing Islam

Can I ask Bernard and Red Rebel where they get get their information re their earlier posts on the intelligence services.

If you have no easy links just some pointers where to start.

It is not that I don't believe you it is just that nowadays I like to check up on sources and facts behind information I get so that I can make my own mind up independently of their accuracy and draw my own conclusions.

Having had the wool pulled over my eyes by the government on the miners strike at the time, the Falklands war at the time, the reasons for the Gulf war (by the looks of it)etc., I frankly am not inclined to take for granted anything the government or the papers say anymore with out a bit of checking.

So I can't also take at face value what others say, however informed they seem, as I suppose it is possible that these people have used a dodgy source.

Incidentally it was after I went to see comedians Mark Thomas and Rob Newman that I started to look at the euro/oil thing. There are plenty of sources to back this up. What appalls me is the standard of reporting in this country.

Bernard_Samson Posted on 28/10 12:54
re: Appeasing Islam

One from each side, to be fair and balance,2933,123405,00.html

Link: Nice profile of Chalabi as well for you

zaphod Posted on 28/10 13:12
re: Appeasing Islam

Only an economic illiterate could think that the currency oil sales are denominated in would have any economic impact at all. It's just a figure on a piece of paper (invoice or LC or whatever). Real monetary flows and investor confidence determine a currency's exchange rate - and in any case the strengthening of the euro was bad, not good, for the currency's members.

red_rebel Posted on 28/10 13:43
re: Appeasing Islam

Here's a bit of background on the great Iraqi democrat.

Link: the CIA's Iraq "office manager"

Lefty3668 Posted on 28/10 13:59
re: Appeasing Islam

Thanks Bernard, Thanks Reb.


I take it you are referring to me as the economic illiterate. Fair point. I am an economic semi-literate (or probably quarter literate), at best which is probably more dangerous.

Could you expand a little more on what you say then so that I may be a little better educated and understand where I have gone wrong.

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 28/10 14:00 ---

riverboat_captain Posted on 28/10 14:14
re: Appeasing Islam

This economic illiteracy point is interesting because one economist writing in a serious newspaper brought up this point, claiming that it is a licence for the US literally to print money.

If for instance, China wants to buy $ billion of oil from Russia, it must pay in US dollars (I know that no actual money changes hands) and those dollars must be bought. The US sells those dollars to China who then hands them to Russia. The US can then simply print that amount of dollars to circulate in its own country against the amount of chinese currency it recieves.

Not being an economist I can't remember the exact explanation but it seemed to make sense the way it was laid out.

Lefty3668 Posted on 28/10 15:12
re: Appeasing Islam

Yes, that was along the lines that Rob Newman explained it.

He called it the magic cheque because he could only find one comparison with it which was Pablo Picasso in his latter years in Spain.

Picasso would say go to a restaurant in Spain, take all of his friends with him and treat them all to the best stuff. At the end the manager would bring the bill and Pabby would get his cheque book out, write the cheque out and then turn it over and say 'because it was such an exquisite meal I will do something I special for you' and on the back of the cheque he would draw a picture.

The manager would be delighted an say 'Mr Picasso, you honour me. I am never ever going to bank this cheque, it will go framed on my wall'.

So in his later years Picasso never ever had to actually pay for a meal.

Where the euro comparison comes in is this. Lets say some art critics went around all the galleries and suddenly declared that Picasso was now shoite, in an emperors new clothes way. The restaurant managers would all suddenly go 'hrrrmph, that Picasso, he is no good, what a cheek giving me that picture, I am not having that cheque on the wall anymore I am going to cash it'

And when all those cheques start winging their way to the bank Mr Picasso might just find that he hasn't got the money.

This is particularly true in America's case.

Since the 50's Opec demanded that all oil transactions were conducted in dollars, mainly because the dollar was strong and stable. Therefore anyone wanting to buy dollars has to buy them off America. The effect of this, for over 50 years now, is to push the value of the dollar way beyond what it would be if it was based on its GDP.

If there is a switch to euro's then America's currency will become tied to its GDP.

The US trade deficit is so enormous as it is that they can barely pay its interest payments to all the countries it owes money to e.g. Japan, China. and that is with the assistance of a dollar worth more than its GDP.

Picasso's cheques might start to hit the bank.

Lefty3668 Posted on 28/10 15:40
re: Appeasing Islam

Zaphod of course has an answer to this.

Lefty3668 Posted on 28/10 17:54
re: Appeasing Islam

It seems not. That is the trouble with economists - they all seem to get it wrong.

red_rebel Posted on 28/10 18:59
re: Appeasing Islam

Lefty, I like the cut of your gib.

There is of course another example of cashing the magic cheque in recent years and that too was blamed on the Arab oil nations (and the greedy workers too, but that is a given).

During the war the US had accumulated a three quarters of the world's gold reserves. They weren't going to trade in dodgy currencies that could collapse with defeat, that is obvious.

Once victory was certain they set about restoring capitalism. It was no good being the biggest industrial power on the planet if a war weary world couldn't afford to buy your goods.

Hence the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. That thrashed out what was to be the Marshall Plan, cash aid to Eaurope to rebuild industry and markets and as a bulwark against the Reds.

That massive financial investment was based on that mountain of gold. The US agreed to go onto the gold standard to underpin the flood of money and settled a price of $34 per ounce.

All fine and dandy and so began the long post-war boom based of non-stop industrial growth. Hurrah!

But two things happen in the sixties that threw a spanner in the works. Firstly the space race and the untold billions of dollars spent on exploration and the assciated ballistic missile technology.

The second was the arms race and even more uncontrolled spending, including the folly of the Vietnam War. The US was printingand spending far, far more money than their gold reserves could cover but shussssh, say nothing.

Then in 1968 the May student pranks in Paris brought the French State down and the Gaullist backlash soon after saw the setting up of the Fifth Republic and boosted welfare espending.

To pay for it France decided to do some under-pinning of their economy, realised they didn't have enough reserves to back it and did the unthinkable - they cashed the magic cheque and tried to buy tonnes of gold from the US at the fixed $35 an onunce.

The US refused - knowing it was imposssible to sell at that price because by now each ounce was holding up hundreds of dollars worth of national deficit. That sparked a panic on teh world markets and the price of gold rocketed.

The Arabs acted quickly to reprice their product. Why should they sell at a fixed price when the rise in gold had made the dollar collapse in value. Hence hiked oil prices.

Of course the Western media blamed the arabs (and still do) for starting the hyper-inflation when they were reacting to a chain of events started within the US organised global economy.

And of course when workers reacted to the inflation by demanding pay rises they too were blamed for the collapse of civilsation and were told they were greedy and unrealistic and paying themselves more than they were earning.

zaphod Posted on 28/10 19:42
re: Appeasing Islam

Sorry for the delay. I've been out ministering to my kids' needs (mobile phone up-grade, new glasses etc.).

When you sell something in US$, all that happens is that your customer transfers US$ from his US$ (or whatever) bank account to your US$ (or whatever) bank account. You don't buy US$ from the US, because you don't need coin of the realm to do it. It's a purely bank transaction, which doesn't necessarily go anywhere near the US and the US authorities don't know anything about it. The only business reason anyone would want to denominate purchase transactions in Euros rather the US$ is because they thought the Euro was going to be weaker than the US$ or if their income was in Euros and they wanted to avoid a currency mismatch with the attendant risks.

riverboat_captain Posted on 28/10 19:51
re: Appeasing Islam

but what if somebody wants to exchange that billion US dollars into roubles?

Lefty3668 Posted on 31/10 15:39
re: Appeasing Islam

Whoa Zaphod,

Thanks for getting back on the subject (and apologies for not getting back to YOU sooner) but my god for someone who accuses others of being economic illiterates you manage to quite spectacularly miss the whole point.

Try this scenario:

Everyone on your street works and earns money. Everyone else gets paid in all denominations except white £5 notes. You however get paid only in white £5 notes. At some point the water boards/drinks companies/breweries get together and decide (perhaps because you've done a little deal with them) that no-one can buy any type of liquid refreshment unless they pay for it in white fivers. No other denomination will do.

Prior to this your £5 note was worth the same as five £1 coins. It bought you the same as everyone else. What happens now? Because everybody HAS to have liquid immediately your £5's are going to increase a little in value aren't they? Everybody is going to come to you for them.

Maybe some people want to have a little in reserve themselves and come to you and say 'I want some of your fivers'. You say 'I don't want to give you any'. They say 'I will give you £5.05' for them. You work the same hours as everyone else, get the same pay, but suddenly you are that little bit richer.

Others come to you and say rather than me pay more for the dollar, sorry, white fiver, you can have our goods at a little discount, just to make sure you buy them. They want your fivers. So you are better off again, but you are still not earning more or producing more than anyone else.

Pretty soon you start to expect these discounts and so do your family. If your missus or teenage daughter don’t get the luxuries they are used to you are going to get it in the neck.

You are a nice person but you invest in a gun to take with you when you pop round to ask people to give you a discount. Strangely you find if you make the right noises then some people are persuaded to carry on giving you it. You cannot understand why, but they do build up a little resentment and jealousy towards you and they begin calling you Reggie Kray.

Your family and friends won’t hear a bad word against you because you are a good provider and helped them out in the past, but if they stopped to count they would see that actually, since 1946 you have taken your baseball bat to 41 people. That is every 17 months or so on average so Mr Khomeini had better look out when it gets to February!

Eventually of course there are plenty of white fivers in circulation, (so as Zaphod points out, any transactions not directly with yourself do not earn you any money), but by now all the white fivers are worth that little bit more aren’t they e.g. £6.

If red rebel is correct then you have also had the bright idea of printing your own white fivers.

In the cul-de-sac at the end of you street Mr Hussain and Mr Al-Sabah have breweries in their back garden. They have a falling out.

What happens next is that Mr Hussain nips over his next door neighbour’s fence and burns his brewery. Everyone thinks it is out of order and asks you to go round and beat him up. You do that because you are pretty annoyed anyway. By now your family are all alcoholics and the world is running out of hops, plus you’ve heard Mr Hussain was disrespectful to Mr Al-Sabah’s mum too.

You give Mr Hussain such a kicking that he cannot get to the shops to buy food for his family. You say ‘well we will send someone round and you can exchange booze for food and painkillers. You give the booze to me, which is worth a white fiver a bottle. You can then buy £6 worth of bagels and aspirins with it’.

But Mr Hussain is a little miffed with you. He thought you were a friend, but in his opinion, you butted in to his little neighbourly squabble and now he has two broken legs and has to eat through a straw. So on principle he doesn’t want your white fivers even though they are worth more in food.

He then asks the street in general and the other neighbours who have breweries in particular if, rather than exchange his bottles for white fivers, can he exchange them for the new denomination that Mr Brussels gets paid in – the purple fiver. The street says ‘you won’t get as much food back for it but go ahead then you idiot.’

However Mr Brussels has been doing lots of deals with his neighbours and gradually the value of his purple fiver has grown. So much so that one of the other brewers – Mr Khomeini – starts thinking about selling in purple fivers rather than white ones.

What is going to happen to the value of your white fiver then? IT IS GOING TO REDUCE IN VALUE.

Time to go and knack Mr Hussain again to show people what happens if they try to damage the standard of living to which your family have become accustomed. With a bit of luck you will get your hands on his reserves of booze too.

Meanwhile, in the big secluded house set back from the road, the young Don Vito Beijing has been watching with growing interest.

red_rebel Posted on 31/10 15:45
re: Appeasing Islam

*loud applause*

blotonthelandscape Posted on 31/10 15:52
re: Appeasing Islam

As we seem to be putting together a nice left wing theocracy I think I will join in.

We have four families in total in this world with the mother and fathers all earning £40,000.

Family 1 decides not to have kids, Family 2 have 2 kids with the wife continuing to work, family 3 have 2 kinds and the wife decides to pack in work and also look after family 2 kids, up to now everyone keeps thier £40k. Family 4 decide to have 5 kids with the husband and wife deciding to both pack in work and look after thier kids. Where does the extra £40k come from? Would the other 3 families feel as they should contribute?

Thats the crux of socialism, whats fair and what isn't.

Lefty3668 Posted on 31/10 15:55
re: Appeasing Islam

Why thankyou.

I'd like to thank Zaphod too. Until this thread and being forced to think through my last post I hadn't really thought about this whole thing.

It is a little disconcerting being forced to re-evaluate my opinion on things that I have taken for granted.

Lefty3668 Posted on 31/10 16:03
re: Appeasing Islam



Where has that come from? I know the second half of the thread strayed from the appeasing islam topic, but at least it sort of evolved into it.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 31/10 16:09
re: Appeasing Islam

The only difference is that you shop at Macro and I shop at Micro. It doesn't matter if you talk about Rupee's or the evil dollar, the issues the same. Most people will only share to a point until they feel it is unfair. Nothing to do with who own's the dollar.

Lefty3668 Posted on 31/10 16:52
re: Appeasing Islam

I feel a bit like I do when I am watching Harry Hill. Wonderfully baffled.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 31/10 16:54
re: Appeasing Islam

I can class today as another success.

moxzin Posted on 31/10 22:26
re: Appeasing Islam

Problem is Lefty, in spite of that long, long post, it hasn't done anything to convince anyone that currency change = military invasion from the USA.

Surely you must realise that any money "saved" by invading Iraq and forcing the dollar on them is offset massively by the gigantic costs of war.

Economics is the LAST reason to go to war. Its an expensive business and you'd be better off financially doing ANYTHING else. If thats wait years for the UN to get their act together, so be it, it is cheaper than a war.

And like I said, a huge thawing and rapprochement, call it what you will, with the Russian Bear flies in the face of what you say.

And when we go to war with Iran, it will be for one reason only, the picture we see below.

Link: Must never be allowed to happen

littlejimmy Posted on 31/10 22:29
re: Appeasing Islam

Everyone knows a good war is great for the economy. Especially the military-industrial complex who own the government.

moxzin Posted on 31/10 22:44
re: Appeasing Islam

America doesn't need a war to keep helping the MIC. Look at the military spending between 1980-1990 when there weren't any threats apart from a creaking Russia for instance.

No if America wanted to help the Military Industrial guys it could do that anyway without spending many many billions extra on war.

Plus it doesn't explain the location - Iraq. Surely they would have invaded China or Vietnam again if they wanted a good, long war.

littlejimmy Posted on 31/10 22:45
re: Appeasing Islam

China is too big to take on and Vietnam has no oil.

red_rebel Posted on 31/10 22:47
re: Appeasing Islam

But the point about these types of economically genrated wars Mox is that the COST is borne by the public exchequer whil ethe PROFITS are reaped by private corporations.

That is exactly what has happened. A coalition of powerful interests have driven the bank-wagon for war by creating the right political conditions (ie buying a hawk government with a personal stake in the arms industry).

These same powerful interests - like Haliburton - are now reaping the rewards in the shape of $100m+ contracts to rebuild the infra-structure that fellow shareholders took the decision to destroy at public expense.

Private finance is raking it in (as are the politicians getting vast fees for sitting on their boards) while Joe Public pays teh price on the ground as the cost the nation is recouped by closing schools and hospitals.

For further examples read your own history. The East India Comapny. The Opium Wars. War at the behest of industry.

moxzin Posted on 31/10 22:53
re: Appeasing Islam

Back to oil again! So let me get my head around this.

Is this war about:

-Military Industrialism
- Currency changeovers
- Oil

I remember doing a thread ages ago listing all the possible theories for the Iraq War, and the middle one wasn't around then, it seems more and more leftist theories are cropping up as we go on.

Next it'll be because Saddam had secret film of the faked Lunar landings AND he was the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll.

This is why we went into Iraq:

America was hit hard by September 11th and realised it had to take hard action against Terrorism. One of these ways is to tackle rogue regimes that might harbour or help terrorism. Afghanistan was first on the list because vital Al Qaeda bods were in the Afghan mountains. Next it was Iraq simply because Iraq was known to have met with Al Qaeda, Saddam was known to be aggressive and the country was thought to have weapons. Mixed into all this post-September 11th hardline practicality was a pre-September 11th Neoconservative idealism about spreading democracy and free markets and making the repressive regime of Iraq the first example in order to set up a stable, progressive, economically strong and free state in the Middle East in order to stabilise the region. It was a plan that was only ignited by the events of 9/11 that made the administration realise that the time to act was now.

Unluckily, it did happen to be a nation of oil, but even if it hadn't, there would still be a reason for the "Not in my name" brigade to dig up for the "real reason" we went to war. If we invaded Holland it would be because of lobbying by the American tulip companies, etc.

The war in a Iraq was a product of idealism and post-9/11 realism.

littlejimmy Posted on 31/10 22:59
re: Appeasing Islam

"If we invaded Holland it would be because of lobbying by the American tulip companies, etc."

Sorry, but that's the worst analogy ever. America wants and needs oil.

But like you say, it's a mixture of reasons. You've admitted that it was always part of the PNAC's agenda. 9/11 just gave them an excuse, even if the links between Iraq and AQ are tenuous at the very best.

red_rebel Posted on 31/10 23:05
re: Appeasing Islam

Great powers never go to war for principle. They go to war because their immesiate political and ecocomic position is in danger. Sometimes that can be because of a complex cocktail of economic factors.

Mox mate, read that link I put on about a third of the way in, "a geologist writes". That gives an overview of the oil situation.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 1/11 8:38
re: Appeasing Islam

One hell of insult to the people who sided against Franco, and our successful fight against Hitler.

But again you are right, neither should have bothered, Germany is well known for its oil wells.

red_rebel Posted on 1/11 10:19
re: Appeasing Islam

The people who fought Franco were not states. They were principled individuals. The nation states were quite conspicuous by the fact that they stood back and watched a legitimate government crushed.

States did not fight Hitler either until they had no choice. They wentto war when it became clear the German military machine and its growing economic and political power was a direct threat to them.

I can't think of any case ever where a nation has gone to war for a principle.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 1/11 10:32
re: Appeasing Islam

Desperate pedantism.

--- Post edited by blotonthelandscape on 1/11 10:33 ---

red_rebel Posted on 1/11 10:36
re: Appeasing Islam

Obvious failure to read and comprehend.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 1/11 10:40
re: Appeasing Islam

As you have made plain before, the left = inteligencia, the rest of us thick as pig shoite.

red_rebel Posted on 1/11 10:46
re: Appeasing Islam

Far from it. I will engage with anyone of any political complexion on whatever level of debate they choose. You have chosen name calling.

Which is sad because at times you have shown great insight and made a real contribution.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 1/11 10:48
re: Appeasing Islam

I didn't name call, you insinuated I was too stupid to understand.

But its Tuesday, its dark when I go to and come home from work, kids are hyper, I fooking hate this time of year.

(Apr. 21- may 21)
Compromising could be on the agenda today.

On the button.

--- Post edited by blotonthelandscape on 1/11 10:50 ---

red_rebel Posted on 1/11 10:57
re: Appeasing Islam


Wind your neck in once in a while."

Yeah, right. Like I'll be taking notice of that.

Blot mate, I'll buy you a pint in Europe sometime and we can chat about the things we have in common.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 1/11 11:00
re: Appeasing Islam

A bit like Chimps, 98.4% of the same DNA.

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 12:38
re: Appeasing Islam

Red Rebel,

Re wars not fought for economic grounds. At first I thought about Vietnam and Korea as I thought they were wars about ideology. But as the ideologies involved were about economic models then I suppose you are still right.

How about the Falklands? More of a conflict I suppose.

What about the crusades?

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 12:58
re: Appeasing Islam


'Economics is the LAST reason to go to war. Its an expensive business and you'd be better off financially doing ANYTHING else. If thats wait years for the UN to get their act together, so be it, it is cheaper than a war'.

You are a pin head.

Do you think, for example, that the Spanish Armada was a cheap enterprise?

Do you think that the U.S. war of independence started because they were fed up having a monarchy?

red_rebel Posted on 1/11 13:06
re: Appeasing Islam

The Falklands one is a good shout.... but.

The war was provoked by a crisis within the Argentinian Junta.

Prior to the invasion, Argentina had witnessed an upsurge of working-class opposition to a brutal regime which had engaged in kidnappings, assassinations and torture. 20,000 people had ‘disappeared’.

The military police dictatorship was facing judgement day after a six-year bloody dirty war. Just a few days before the invasion on 30 March 20,000 youth and workers had defied the military on the streets of Buenos Aires, protesting against impoverishment, unemployment and the suppression of trade union and democratic rights and a series of general strikes had also broken out.

So the invasion was an attempt by Galtieri to play to the nationalist right wing of teh Peronist movement and to create a national enemy to head off the internal dissent.

Ther is an argument that in 1982 with unemployment heading past 2m, the Tory party split, the country ravaged by strikes and Thatcher's rating down to a lowest record PM opinion poll score of 28% that she faced a similar crisis.

Plus, the British capitalists, like any ruling class, ultimately base their position not only on their income, but also on their power and prestige. Thatcher on behalf of British capitalism, invoked the rights of the Falkland Islanders.

Britain was allegedly defending democracy against ‘fascist’ Argentina. Yet the Tories been quite happy to sanction massive arms sales to this ‘fascist’ junta and to remain completely silent about the repression of the Argentine working class.

Moreover, they had very little regard for the Falkland Islanders themselves, refusing to develop the island’s services and downgrading them from commonwealth citizens to crown dependents. Just six months before going to defend thier BRitishness the Tories had taken away their right to a passport.

Their were other factors to. The islands were not a colony as such, rather a wholly owned one company outpost completely in hock to the Falkland Islands Company. There is an argument that sending gunships to the aid of a British company half way round the globe is an echo of Victorian policy, and it would notbe the first time it was said about Thatcher.

There were also concerns about the loss of potential oil rights and mineral right in the Antartic which under international law was being divvied up according to who owned nearby territory.

Sorry, I don't know much about the economics of teh crusades but I'll certianly have a dig around.

Scrote Posted on 1/11 13:45
re: Appeasing Islam

the general economics of the crusades is pretty straightforward although it does get complicated when you bring the Church into it

basically the crusaders were second, third and fourth sons of the nobility who went to fight for prestige, honour and a bit of cold hard cash that they wouldn't be getting any of unless their older siblings died young

they were impoverished peasants who figured on getting their hands on some loot to improve their lot in life

they were random mercenaries intent on getting a share of any riches on offer

the religious aspect clouds this somewhat but essentially it was a land grab with economics as its primary driving factor

until the crusades most of the holy land was open to all and sundry - mainly due to the muslims being far more 'civilised' than we then were - how times change...

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 13:58
re: Appeasing Islam

Well doggone it. I was only thinking of our response which I find a bit of a stretch to claim it was for economic reasons. But yes it was a desperate economic situation that the junta wanted to deflect attention from.

I hope you don't find anything on the Crusades. I'd like to think that some wars were go old fashioned hatred.

How about the mongol invasions?

The six day war - that must be one.

Sorry Sas I didn't see your response before I posted

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 1/11 14:00 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 14:03
re: Appeasing Islam


I can understand that a lot of people will have joined up to get rich (plus the glory), that is opportunism, but can that be cited as a reason for the war in the first place?

Surely this was a genuine holy war rather than an excuse for riches?

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 14:14
re: Appeasing Islam

And Moxzin,

'Problem is Lefty, in spite of that long, long post, it hasn't done anything to convince anyone that currency change = military invasion from the USA. '

Hasn't it? Do you have a link to the thread where everyone voted on that o spokesman for everyone on the board?

Sorry the post was too long for you to understand. You need to also read some of the earlier posts.

Anyway, think yourself lucky, I have just realised that my post should have been even longer. I missed the bit off where Norris McWhirter lives at No 22 and Moxzin lives at No. 24. Norris realises that he has the worlds biggest sponge living next door and goes round to measure it.

'It is easier and less costly to change the way people think about reality than to change reality'

Open your mind to the possibility!

Scrote Posted on 1/11 14:28
re: Appeasing Islam

i'm generally a good christian when it comes to turning the other cheek but some things are unforgiveable

zaphod Posted on 1/11 14:30
re: Appeasing Islam

There is a difference between people using a war to make money and the war being started for economic reasons. The Crusades are a case in point: it was not started for economic reasons, but lots of people went to make money. It could be argued that nobody would have gone if the opportunity for personal profit hadn't been there, but the Papacy which promoted the First Crusade was not out to make money.

Lefty, I've been travelling back to Nairobi for several days, so didn't see your economic argument. It merely reinforces my comment about economic illiteracy. One of the points I was trying to make in my previous post (obviously very badly - which is why I gave up my idea of going into teaching 40 years ago) is that the amount of US dollars in international circulation is not controlled by the US Treasury. They control the amount of notes and coin (M1), but M3 (which is the one that really matters) dwarfs M1 and is a function of how much the US$ is used by banks and their customers. They don't need US$ notes to use the US$ and by and large they don't hold that many. Iraq is insignificant in terms of international transactions, so what they do would be irrelevant. Think of it in terms of you having a bunch of white fivers, but the banks just create a hundred times as many "virtual" white fivers. They did this with the ecu in the days before the euro. Transactions were made and bank balances held in ecu, even though there were no notes or coins in circulation.

Although a strong currency is attractive to those who want to show political machismo, it doesn't necessarily benefit the country concerned. If the currency is too strong, it can damage exporters and domestic producers, who can't compete with those with a better priced currency. The US$ has been weak over the past year: has the US Treasury been worried? Of course not.

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 14:47
re: Appeasing Islam

Scrote, was it me that upset you? I don't understand but sorry if I did.


As I said earlier, I am an economic semi-literate at best. I'm afraid I don't understand your last post (what is M3, M1?).

I understand my own post re the white fivers. I more or less came up with it myself, but it seems to make sense. Do you think it is wrong?

If so can you phrase your answer, or your point about the M1/M3's, in the context of this story?

I am eager to understand.

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 14:53
re: Appeasing Islam

Also, what would be the impact on America if all the oil producing countries start trading in euro's instead of dollars, not just Iraq?

Scrote Posted on 1/11 15:04
re: Appeasing Islam

lefty - you called me sas

saddam or goebbels i'd have brushed off with nary a comment but SAS ffs!!!

zaphod - as far as my understanding of the crusades goes they were started to curtail the economic collapse that was happening in europe due to bands of roving knights with no inheritence taking matters into their own hands and cutting up the countryside

there was no real impressing reason to invade the holy land as pilgrims were treated very hospitably (for the time) - it just served as a convenient excuse to get the troublesome minor nobles out of the way

its probably the reverse situation you would normally see but economics was the presiding factor of the early crusades i.e. the economy was suffering until the crusades got the knights out of the way

zaphod Posted on 1/11 15:17
re: Appeasing Islam

Lefty, your post isn't wrong about white fivers. It's just completely irrelevant when applied to the US$. Basically it's such a gross simplification as to shed no light at all in a sophisticated internationally trading world.

My economics is a bit rusty, but please find below definitions of money in Table A2.3. It shows that in England, 37 billion quid in notes and coins is in circulation, but M3 (money being used in the banking system) is 1 trillion 385 billion - 37 times as much. The basic point is that the banks create much more money than the Government.

Link: Money, money, money

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 15:21
re: Appeasing Islam

Very sorry Scrote, I was reading another thread on a different connection at the same time I was writing a post on this one.

zaphod Posted on 1/11 15:39
re: Appeasing Islam

The First Crusade was in response to a request by the Byzantine Emperor for assistance against Muslim attack. He also claimed that Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem were being attacked by Muslims. There was some basis for this as earlier in the century the Muslim ruler of the area including Jerusalem had demolished the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and banned Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The church had been rebuilt and pilgrimages restarted by the time of the First Crusade, but there were reports of pilgrims being killed. In view of earlier events, there was a readiness to believe the Byzantine Emperor.

It's true also that there were a lot of soldiers around in Western Europe with nothing to do but cause trouble.

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 16:18
re: Appeasing Islam


Thanks for the attempt to help me, but I think I need to read a book.

However, the banks cannot simply 'create' money. It must be based on something, surely, or it becomes worthless (unless people continue to believe in its value), like the currency in Argentina was prior to their invasion of the Malvenas I now recall.

I do not doubt that the minutiae of the international trading world are complicated. But I was trying to simplify them. Most economic theories/models/ism's can be simplified. In fact they have to be.

Can't you give it a shot re my white fivers scenario?

Either the US dollar is currently overvalued as a result of it's privileged position of being the only currency that people could use to purchase the black gold , lifeblood of the economies of all the countries in the modern world, for 50 years, or not.

Either a sudden switch away from the dollar by OPEC would severely harm the US economy, or not.

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 1/11 16:56 ---

red_rebel Posted on 1/11 16:38
re: Appeasing Islam


M1 = physical money in circulaion, ie your white fivers.

M3 = total of money transaction, ie credit, mortgages and the magic cheques written by the government.

Here's something on teh euro/dollar debate which you may fin dilluminating...

Moscow Times
Friday, Oct. 10, 2003.

Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?

By Catherine Belton
Staff Writer

President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Russia could switch its trade in oil from dollars to euros, a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for the global balance of power -- potentially hurting the U.S. dollar and economy and providing a massive boost to the euro zone.

"We do not rule out that it is possible. That would be interesting for our European partners," Putin said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the Urals town of Yekaterinburg, where the two leaders conducted two-day talks.

"But this does not depend solely on us. We do not want to hurt prices on the
market," he said.

"Putin's putting a big card on the table," said Youssef Ibrahim, managing director of the Strategic Energy Investment Group in Dubai and a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, an influential body of leading world thinkers thought to help set the United States' foreign policy agenda.

"In the context of what is happening worldwide, this statement is very important," he said.

Putin's words come in the wake of a protracted drive by the EU to attract more countries' trade and currency reserves into euros, in a bid to chip away at U.S. hegemony over the global economy and money supply.

A move by Russia, as the world's second largest oil exporter, to trade oil in euros, could provoke a chain reaction among other oil producers currently mulling a switch and would further boost the euro's gradually growing share of global currency reserves.

That would be a huge boon to the euro zone economy and potentially catastrophic for the United States.

Dollar-based global oil trade now gives the United States carte blanche to print dollars without sparking inflation -- to fund huge expenses on wars, military build-ups, and consumer
spending, as well as cut taxes and run up huge trade deficits.

_*Almost two-thirds of the world's currency reserves are kept in dollars, since oil importers pay in dollars and oil exporters keep their reserves in the currency they are paid in.

This effectively provides the U.S. economy with an interest-free loan, as these dollars can be invested back into the U.S. economy with zero currency risk.

If a Russian move to the euro were to prompt other oil producers to do the same, it could be a "catastrophe" for the United States, Ibrahim said.

"There are already a number of countries within OPEC that would prefer to trade in euros."

Iran, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, has also openly mulled a move into euros. And after the war in Iraq, there is growing debate in the United States' traditional ally Saudi Arabia on a switch too, though its government has not come down firmly on one side.

Ibrahim said: "There is a revision going on of its strategic relationship with the United States. Already, they're buying more [French-made] Airbuses.

"The Saudi Crown Prince [Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud]'s visit to Russia was of great significance and the regime is talking about closer cooperation with LUKoil and other Russian companies."

*Under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi oil was traded in euros. "This was another reason [why the U.S. attacked]," Ibrahim said. "There is a great political dimension to this. Slowly more power and muscle is moving from the United States to the EU, and that's mainly because of what happened in Iraq," he said.

Putin had previously brought up the proposal to switch to euros as prime minister in October 1999, at a meeting of EU leaders in Helsinki. Then, in an attempt to forge a new bloc to counterbalance the United States, he made the proposal alongside calling for closer cooperation between Russia and the
EU, including on security issues.

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 17:50
re: Appeasing Islam

Anyone know what M2 is then?

I thought that was what the difference was Rebel.

Am I right in still thinking therefore that Zaphod has missed the point?

Yes I am finding there is a lot of imformation on the web about this currency switch impact. Most of the sources seem respectable too.

It all makes a lot of sense to me. More sense than Iraq were harbouring terrorists and were about to launch a biochemical attack on the west with less weapons (one 155mm shell!) than you could buy in most Liverpool pubs.

moxzin Posted on 1/11 19:05
re: Appeasing Islam

"You are a pin head."

"Sorry the post was too long for you to understand"

"Anyway, think yourself lucky, I have just realised that my post should have been even longer. I missed the bit off where Norris McWhirter lives at No 22 and Moxzin lives at No. 24. Norris realises that he has the worlds biggest sponge living next door and goes round to measure it."

Can I ask what I did to warrant all that lot rather than pitch a few questions at you?

Because I don't agree, that obviously means I don't understand. Right. Do you agree with genocide? Oh thats because you don't understand it.

A bit of a flaw in the logic there perhaps.

But feel free to patronise and climb aboard your Liberal tall ship and look down on us hardened wretches drowning in the black waters of ignorance as you course towards Utopia.

--- Post edited by moxzin on 1/11 19:05 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 1/11 22:37
re: Appeasing Islam


I called you a pin head because a) it felt good and b) because AS I HIGHLIGHTED you said 'Economics is the LAST reason to go to war'.

Trying to find an example throughout history where economics has not been a contributing if not the overriding factor in any war is proving to be quite difficult.

So I would have thought that even you would have been able to find one or two examples where economics was NOT the last reason to go to war. I then cited the Spanish Armada as an example.

Are you honestly telling me that the cost of a war is so prohibitive that it is never worthwhile economically? Because it wasn't cheap for the Spanish to send all of its galleons to South America to butcher the Aztecs and Inca's but it was worth it. And it was even more expensive for Phillip of Spain to put together the largest fleet ever seen in the west plus a huge land Army to try to stop our Liz from sending out her pirates like Drake to nab his ships.

My rather pithy comment on my post being too long for you to understand was in response to your rather pithy comment that it was a long, long post. As you clearly didn't understand it I assumed you drifted off a bit part way through.

My Norris McWhirter jibe was because you do seem to believe the official line on things without question. If you had been in Germany in 1939 would you have believed that the Jews were the root of all your troubles. If you were a muslim in the middle east at the moment would you be strapping on those explosives to get your hands on those virgins?

You did not pose me any questions by the way, but you did claim to speak for everyone which got up my nose.

And how is anything I have said on this post regarding my opinion for the war in Iraq either leftist or liberal?

I do take it back though. You are not a pin head. You are a moron.

By the way, I am not patronising you. I am insulting you.

I do still quite like you though

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 1/11 22:38 ---

red_rebel Posted on 2/11 9:38
re: Appeasing Islam

The idea that Mox would "have believed that the Jews were the root of all your troublesand If you were a muslim in the middle east at the moment would be strapping on those explosives to get your hands on those virgins" is fantastically provocative. Hoof.

Lefty3668 Posted on 2/11 11:13
re: Appeasing Islam

It was intended to be provocative, but I get the feeling there is something I don't know.

tees_tug Posted on 2/11 11:19
re: Appeasing Islam

"sending out her pirates like Drake to nab his ships."

We were only 'taxing' the Spanish.

One of the better parts of our history.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 2/11 11:22
re: Appeasing Islam

I agree on one thing with Moxiboy, if you don't always agree with the left, they think you are stupid.

red_rebel Posted on 2/11 11:24
re: Appeasing Islam

Mox has committed himself to zealously defend the besieged State of Israel in all of its legitimate and understandable actions against the heavily armed land stealing new-comers the Palestinians, who as we all know are terrorists to a man.

He believes the creation of a strong Israel and the rebuilding of the temple to be a crucial step towards the End Days and the Rapture beloved of fundamentalist Christians.

He believes a nation that has forcibly expelled two thirds of its indiginous population at gunpoint and has denied political represention to the remainder who are corraled in an open air prison to be the only democracy in teh middle east.

(Now that's a provocation )

zaphod Posted on 2/11 12:21
re: Appeasing Islam

Lefty, glad to see you actually believe what you read. My experience is that whenever you read something in the newspapers that you know about, it's generally wrong or grossly distorted.

Why do you think the banks can't create money? Of course they do! That's why it's such a hopeless task trying to control exchange rates. Banks actually are far more credit-worthy than a lot of Governments.

The article of 2 years ago contains a kernel of truth. The US needs the US$ to retain credibility as a reserve currency, that is a currency (instruments not cash) which other Governments and central banks are willing to hold their reserves in. They need this because they need willing buyers for US Treasury bonds to finance their deficit. I don't believe Iraq using euros to trade in (or Russia, for that matter) would affect that much, but if there was a general switch to euros as a reserve currency then that would create big problems for the US Treasury. However, the major player in all this is Japan and I can't see that they would be much influenced by Iraq or Saudi or Russia's decisions. Also the euro area's reserves would not be held in euros either.

Lefty3668 Posted on 2/11 12:33
re: Appeasing Islam

Sounds like there have been some interesting threads in the past.


I am trying to understand if/why you think that people who suspect that the reasons for going to war are not the ones stated by the Bush administration are left wing.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 2/11 12:36
re: Appeasing Islam

Red, you havn't commented on the civil war in Jordon between the government and the Palestian refugees in the 70's. There again they are also Arab so I assume that was acceptable. The jews were not and will not be the last to have issues with the Palestinians. Yasser was responsible for the deaths of more of his own people that the Israilis will ever be, and that was all about his need for power and the $billions he has hidden.

Try looking at thinks from two perspectives, not only that given at political rallies in the 70's, I was at most of them and have moved on if only slightly.

red_rebel Posted on 2/11 12:50
re: Appeasing Islam

Neither have I commented much on the purges within the PLO when fatah started bumping off the socialists and the tension between nationalism and Marxism within the armed struggle.

I am well versed in the political, military and structural failings of the PLO and could bang on at great length about them (ask Mox) but whatever they are does not alter the legal and moral arguments over Israel.

We must talk about your expereinces at political meeting in the seventies some time in a non-confrontational way. I bet I have more criticism of sectarian Marxist vanguardism than you could shake a stick at.

And I think I would probably would find looking at things from only two perspectives a bit limiting.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 2/11 12:58
re: Appeasing Islam

Red, I think where we fundementaly differ is that I honestly believe that Blair has sussed it out. He knows exactly how far to go, how to tax highly, how to spend money on Public services, how to appease enough to keep the Jackboots happy, how to increase aid. Benn, Foot, Skinner et al would never ever have got away with it, I think he is the left in sheeps clothing.

As for appeasing Islam as you are aware I abhor any type of bigotory, the Jews are as wrong as the Arabs in my eyes, but in reality what are you going to to about Isreal, follow the line of the Iranian leader or accept that they need to live somewhere.

red_rebel Posted on 2/11 13:13
re: Appeasing Islam

In Israel I an for a one state solution, a secular social democracy. I think that can only come about by hard work at teh grassroots on both sides of the wall by some very brave people.

It means liberal/democrats/socilaist in the Palestinian camp risking a bullet by fighting to release the grip Islam has on the intafada and fighting fo solidarity with ordinary Israeli workers.

It means ordinary Israeli workers opposing the permanent military-intelligence clique that runs their nation and building a mass movement calling for peace, the de-Zionisation of their state and for full participatory citizenship for all Palestinians.

To that end I oppose the leaderships and policies on both sides.

If a zionist tries to justify and legitimise his state I will argue till I;m blue in teh face that that state is undemocratic, built on violence, flies in teh face of international law and is wittingly or unwittingly a pawn in a US world game that leads to instability, tension and a cycle of violence.

If a Palestinian tries to justify the Intafada I will argue till I'm blue in the face that an Islamo-nationalist armed struggle perspective is alienating world opinion and cutting away the vital support in Western bourgoise radical circles. I would advocate political action and an orientation towards the Israeli working class. But we don't get many of them on here though.

I would be denounced as an idealist but I am used to that.

--- Post edited by red_rebel on 2/11 13:16 ---

zaphod Posted on 2/11 13:33
re: Appeasing Islam

You can always rely on a leftie to come up with a totally impractical solution, as it avoids the necessity of engaging with reality. But then again that's what Marxism is all about.

Idealism is great (I have lots of it myself), but it's only any use if it's allied to a degree of pragmatism.

red_rebel Posted on 2/11 13:38
re: Appeasing Islam

Impractical, yes. But only as impractical as expecting either teh Palestinians to renounce their claim to their own land and accept Israel's cast offs or to expect the Israeli's to agree, that yes, they were a bit hasty with all that carving out a state on someone else's land stuff and they were all going to go home.

Sadly the only 'practical' solution is accepting the status quo and both sides talking about peace but digging in for an eternal war (ie current American foreign policy)

--- Post edited by red_rebel on 2/11 13:39 ---

blotonthelandscape Posted on 2/11 13:47
re: Appeasing Islam

Palestine isn't only in Isreal though. No matter where the Palestinians have lived or tried to live someone has moved them on. To blame only Isreal can't be right, didn'r St Sadam give them a kicking, and Saudi and Jordon.

If the world was fair wouldn't Iran give a small part of its huge country over to them? again part of it is Palestine.

red_rebel Posted on 2/11 13:51
re: Appeasing Islam

I don't know about Iraq but Syria certainly did.

Sadly it is all part of regional power politics. But do we wash our hands of it nad say a plague on all your houses or do we push for a viable solution that puts peace and democracy at the forefront rather than short term strategic advantage?

zaphod Posted on 2/11 14:30
re: Appeasing Islam

What is practical is what large numbers on both sides would accept: a 2-state solution. The big issues are the borders. Really tough, but achievable in the long run, as war-weariness becomes an increasing factor. This is as opposed to an impractical one state solution which would be unacceptable to 99% of Jews as it would make them a minority. In fact it is this issue that makes the Israeli Government want a solution.

red_rebel Posted on 2/11 14:57
re: Appeasing Islam

Zaphod, if anyone could deliver that (and the border is the crucial and divisive issue that is not going away no matter where you build your wall) then I would support it.

I think it is unlikely because both sides leadership are entrenched in an ideology that is diametrically opposed to that no matter what they say when they are courting public opinion. Both leaderships have vested interest in teh current situation.

My stated ideal is just that. An ideal. It isn't an absolute. There is always room for compromise or small steps forward. But I think the only significant movement is going to come from a popular grassroots drive for peace and the only prospect forits success is that if it unites sections of both communities.

And I think the only programme that can do that is one that puts secularism and democracy at its heart and that offers a genuine chance of peace and opportunity for all. Call me old fashioned but for me that sounds like a job for socialism.

moxzin Posted on 3/11 12:17
re: Appeasing Islam

Point is red_rebel, you and I both know that if we were playing this as straight as a die you would be giving great credit to Israel and would actually see a lot of what you want in Israeli society today.

With comments like:

"And I think the only programme that can do that is one that puts secularism and democracy at its heart and that offers a genuine chance of peace and opportunity for all"

"It means ordinary Israeli workers opposing the permanent military-intelligence clique that runs their nation and building a mass movement calling for peace, the de-Zionisation of their state and for full participatory citizenship for all Palestinians."

Don't you see this happening on the Israeli side? Ever heard of Peace Now? Do you realise that the last 3 out of 5 Israeli Prime Ministers have been "on the left of the opponent" (I know you would be loathed to call them "left wing")? Haven't you noticed the large marches for peace, and pro-disengagement activities to counter the orange resistance? In case you hadn't noticed, Israel recently gave up land no strings attached in a bid for peace, and the population tacitly supported it. Have you seen the increasing moves away from Mosaic/Torah/Talmudic law and the secularisation of the state in recent years? Is it a mirage or are there Arab members of the Knesset?

When I was on holiday in Kos, I meant some Israelis. Cosmopolitan, young and trendy, I think I knew more about Judaism then they did and all they wanted was peace, to a man, with the Palestinians. Its not an exhaustive sample I'll agree, but if there are young Israelis like this, full of liberal idealism and not Judeo-Biblical fervour, your hopes for peace and secularisation may come true, and you shouldn't dismiss it as a reality.

My point is, though, where is this secularisation on the Palestinian side? Where are the liberal movements? Is there such a species as a Streptopelia Palestinius? Why aren't they making their voices heard?

Where IS the non-violent protest? Where is the Palestinian Gandhi, or Luther King?

On one side I see hardline militancy and progressive liberalism in constant opposition, and on the other I just see hardline militancy.

Now, why on earth can't you see that you would find many more supporters of your ideas in Israel then you would in Palestine?

Link: do they exist or is it a dream?

red_rebel Posted on 3/11 12:38
re: Appeasing Islam

Do you have a short term memory problem Mox? Remember my monster post from last month? In fact I was bigging up the Israeli socialist movement and its building of a peace alliance with trade unions and the mothers of dead soldiers.

But that is one one part of the picture. The other is the military/security elite that rule Israel. They are not democrats in any sense of the word and no matter how many times they switch seats between the various factions you will not change the entrenched military perspective they adopt.

It will take a revolutionary change in teh Israel state to deliver and that can only come from within. It is not something that can be brought about by the Intafada or Arab pressure.

The point is that the leadership ON BOTH SIDES must be changed. And as Israel is the dominant economic and military power it is more pressing that they are changed.

As I say, it will take brave and determined people on both sides to push for a political rather than military solution.

We differ because you support the Israeli state - and that is the institution that is the chief obstacle to peace.

Lefty3668 Posted on 3/11 16:05
re: Appeasing Islam

I feel as if I am butting in now, but anyway ……..


What do you mean by ‘Lefty, glad to see you actually believe what you read. My experience is that whenever you read something in the newspapers that you know about, it's generally wrong or grossly distorted.’

What do you mean by that? I thought my post of 12:40 on 28/10 which went thus:-

‘Can I ask Bernard and Red Rebel where they get get their information re their earlier posts on the intelligence services. It is not that I don't believe you it is just that nowadays I like to check up on sources and facts behind information I get so that I can make my own mind up independently of their accuracy and draw my own conclusions.

Having had the wool pulled over my eyes by the government on the miners strike at the time, the Falklands war at the time, the reasons for the Gulf war (by the looks of it)etc., I frankly am not inclined to take for granted anything the government or the papers say anymore with out a bit of checking.

So I can't also take at face value what others say, however informed they seem, as I suppose it is possible that these people have used a dodgy source.’

makes it clear I don't automatically believe everything I read.

It is why, even though I am pretty sure that my argument about the $/Euro is correct, I am making an effort to understand your points. Frankly I am struggling at the moment. That may be because I am too thick to understand it, or it may be because you have not explained it very well, or it may be that you do not understand your own argument fully or it may be that you do understand your own argument, but it is simply wrong.

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes a little.

When you say the ‘banks’ can just create money do you mean commercial banks or the Bank Of England, the US Federal Reserve etc.?

If you are talking about commercial banks when you say ‘create money’ (and I think you are) do you mean create wealth/profits through returns on investment, interest on lending etc rather than somehow magic this money up out of thin air?

Lefty3668 Posted on 3/11 16:12
re: Appeasing Islam

Also Zaph, re the me believing what I read, I refer you to my post to Moxzin of 14:14 on 1/11


I always bear this in mind these days.

moxzin Posted on 3/11 18:33
re: Appeasing Islam

red_rebel, I feel you've missed the point of my post considerably, I don't know quite where to begin.

My point is:

Yes there is, in your view, a tyrannical, satanic, Nazi etc etc government in charge of Israel BUT there is a large, liberal, peaceful movement towards, er, peace. Thats on the Israeli side.

But where is this movement on the Palestinian side? Like I said is there such thing as a Palestinian dove, just as there are many Israeli doves? If so where are they and why aren't they making their voices heard?

I feel I'm repeating myself because you missed completely my criticims of the Palestinian movement in your response.

Where is the non-violent Palestinian opposition? We have the Israeli one, and we need the reciprocal. THATS my point.

Oh, and another thing, look at it this way: as I think you have acknowledged, the Fascsist Nazi Neo Imperialist ole Hound Dogs in charge of Israel wouldn't have any reason/excuse to go in and kill thousands (no, wait, 54) of Palestinians in Jenin and places if Palestinian people weren't committing atrocious acts of terrorism.

Don't forget, as the PLO and its "charter" to destroy Israel that co-ordinated the first terrorist actions against Israel, was founded in 1964, before the 1967 war and the enlarged, enbravened Israel, and way way before the issue of settlements and incursions ever came about (thats more Begin-era), its intellectually dishonest to claim Israel started the "terrorism".