It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
Nos89 wrote:Look at the state of our country and look at the current state of the middle east, what do they have in common...Tony Blair. After bailing out before the shit hit the fan in the UK, he has done the same in the middle east. Worked with UN as a peace envoy bailed out before shit has hit the fan. The guy is
Blair was appointed Middle East peace envoy but his focus is on Israel-Arab ties.
To be fair to him, he has done some good work there, and built up the start of a workable Palestinian economy in the West Bank, particulary Ramallah, which has contributed to less fighting in the past year.
Isn't that what he he said in his autobiography??
Not read it.
But I know people who have been to Ramallah and seen what has happened there.
in a purely selfish perspective for the west..interms of these countries not having democracy and shiz....its majorly bad news whats happening in north afica.
its going to mirror iraq and afghanistan....countries in chaos. saddam persecuted some of his population and murdered many, but how fucked are they now...many more are dieng cos hes gone...same will happen in n africa, and lead to breeding grounds for terrorism.
historically these countries have needed a strong man in charge to maintain order and unite them...a gaddafi or hussain and however unsavoury they are the west should keep them onside otherwise its the west and the people of these countries that will kop the flack in the end.
basically this is very bad news for us, and those countries concerned. many more lybians will die in this unrest and in the hell that wil break lose if gaddafi goes than had he stayed in charge imo.
in a purely selfish perspective for the west..interms of these countries not having democracy and shiz....its majorly bad news whats happening in north afica.
its going to mirror iraq and afghanistan....countries in chaos. saddam persecuted some of his population and murdered many, but how fucked are they now...many more are dieng cos hes gone...same will happen in n africa, and lead to breeding grounds for terrorism.
historically these countries have needed a strong man in charge to maintain order and unite them...a gaddafi or hussain and however unsavoury they are the west should keep them onside otherwise its the west and the people of these countries that will kop the flack in the end.
basically this is very bad news for us, and those countries concerned. many more lybians will die in this unrest and in the hell that wil break lose if gaddafi goes than had he stayed in charge imo.
RossieGooner wrote:
Why is it bad news for "us" ? "we" aint in libya.
Increased petrol prices and heating bills.
I was listening to item on radio that some "expert oil trader" said that OPEC have more than enough to supply the west even if Libya's supply was cut off. The increase in prices would be purely down to speculation and would reduce again when it was evident that loss of oil supply from Libya was not affecting the ability to service the West's oil demand.
RossieGooner wrote:
Why is it bad news for "us" ? "we" aint in libya.
Increased petrol prices and heating bills.
I was listening to item on radio that some "expert oil trader" said that OPEC have more than enough to supply the west even if Libya's supply was cut off. The increase in prices would be purely down to speculation and would reduce again when it was evident that loss of oil supply from Libya was not affecting the ability to service the West's oil demand.
What what i heard they only supply 2% of world oil Hardly worth getting our knickers in a twist over.
in a purely selfish perspective for the west..interms of these countries not having democracy and shiz....its majorly bad news whats happening in north afica.
its going to mirror iraq and afghanistan....countries in chaos. saddam persecuted some of his population and murdered many, but how fucked are they now...many more are dieng cos hes gone...same will happen in n africa, and lead to breeding grounds for terrorism.
historically these countries have needed a strong man in charge to maintain order and unite them...a gaddafi or hussain and however unsavoury they are the west should keep them onside otherwise its the west and the people of these countries that will kop the flack in the end.
basically this is very bad news for us, and those countries concerned. many more lybians will die in this unrest and in the hell that wil break lose if gaddafi goes than had he stayed in charge imo.
Why is it bad news for "us" ? "we" aint in libya.
I think he was refering to my post on the previous page
because civil unrest and no clear control lead to a society being a mess and a breeding ground for terrorism. terrorists who will target us.
at least with gaddafi he kept order (albeit brutally perhaps) but the country wasnt a breeding ground for terrorists, at least not the last decade, which potentially could happen with al qaeeda and other extremists group filling the power vacuum left by gaddafi.
the playing mantis wrote:because civil unrest and no clear control lead to a society being a mess and a breeding ground for terrorism. terrorists who will target us.
at least with gaddafi he kept order (albeit brutally perhaps) but the country wasnt a breeding ground for terrorists, at least not the last decade, which potentially could happen with al qaeeda and other extremists group filling the power vacuum left by gaddafi.
I think you should research Gaddafi a bit more - he was/is outspoken supporter, facilitator and financier of terrorists and terrorism.
Good riddance that he is on the way out - whoever or whatever replaces him can be no worse.
RossieGooner wrote:
Why is it bad news for "us" ? "we" aint in libya.
Increased petrol prices and heating bills.
I was listening to item on radio that some "expert oil trader" said that OPEC have more than enough to supply the west even if Libya's supply was cut off. The increase in prices would be purely down to speculation and would reduce again when it was evident that loss of oil supply from Libya was not affecting the ability to service the West's oil demand.
True but you need price competition and removing a competitor from the marketplace will only serve to increase prices eventually.
Its not democracy that these places are really calling out for - its market consumer capitalism which just so happens to be associated with democracy.
These oil states have experienced massive population booms in the last 50 years which has created a massive demand for jobs which a one-dimensional rentier economy simply has no way of providing. This is a ticking time bomb because as much as we in the west like to navel gaze about bringing "democracy" to these places our vested interest is firmly in keeping them producing rather then consuming oil.
This table tells you all you need to know:
COUNTRY: Libya/Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
POPULATION IN MILLIONS 1.03 1.35 1.99 3.04 4.33 5.31
RossieGooner wrote:
Why is it bad news for "us" ? "we" aint in libya.
Increased petrol prices and heating bills.
I was listening to item on radio that some "expert oil trader" said that OPEC have more than enough to supply the west even if Libya's supply was cut off. The increase in prices would be purely down to speculation and would reduce again when it was evident that loss of oil supply from Libya was not affecting the ability to service the West's oil demand.
True but you need price competition and removing a competitor from the marketplace will only serve to increase prices eventually.
Its not democracy that these places are really calling out for - its market consumer capitalism which just so happens to be associated with democracy.
These oil states have experienced massive population booms in the last 50 years which has created a massive demand for jobs which a one-dimensional rentier economy simply has no way of providing. This is a ticking time bomb because as much as we in the west like to navel gaze about bringing "democracy" to these places our vested interest is firmly in keeping them producing rather then consuming oil.
This table tells you all you need to know:
COUNTRY: Libya/Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
POPULATION IN MILLIONS 1.03 1.35 1.99 3.04 4.33 5.31
Doesn't matter - tens of millions of Chinese starting to drive cars instead of riding bikes will dwarf anything else - in terms of oil consumption, and in terms of environmental controls.
So, what Libyans may consume themselves, or similar sized countries, is barely here nor there.
RossieGooner wrote:
Why is it bad news for "us" ? "we" aint in libya.
Increased petrol prices and heating bills.
I was listening to item on radio that some "expert oil trader" said that OPEC have more than enough to supply the west even if Libya's supply was cut off. The increase in prices would be purely down to speculation and would reduce again when it was evident that loss of oil supply from Libya was not affecting the ability to service the West's oil demand.
True but you need price competition and removing a competitor from the marketplace will only serve to increase prices eventually.
Its not democracy that these places are really calling out for - its market consumer capitalism which just so happens to be associated with democracy.
These oil states have experienced massive population booms in the last 50 years which has created a massive demand for jobs which a one-dimensional rentier economy simply has no way of providing. This is a ticking time bomb because as much as we in the west like to navel gaze about bringing "democracy" to these places our vested interest is firmly in keeping them producing rather then consuming oil.
This table tells you all you need to know:
COUNTRY: Libya/Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
POPULATION IN MILLIONS 1.03 1.35 1.99 3.04 4.33 5.31
It really isnt all we need to know LDB. If these oil producing countries (the richest per capita in the world) spread the wealth (as some do) everyone would be quite happy and wealthy - rather than self appointed "monarchies" or "leaders".
RossieGooner wrote:
Why is it bad news for "us" ? "we" aint in libya.
Increased petrol prices and heating bills.
I was listening to item on radio that some "expert oil trader" said that OPEC have more than enough to supply the west even if Libya's supply was cut off. The increase in prices would be purely down to speculation and would reduce again when it was evident that loss of oil supply from Libya was not affecting the ability to service the West's oil demand.
True but you need price competition and removing a competitor from the marketplace will only serve to increase prices eventually.
Its not democracy that these places are really calling out for - its market consumer capitalism which just so happens to be associated with democracy.
These oil states have experienced massive population booms in the last 50 years which has created a massive demand for jobs which a one-dimensional rentier economy simply has no way of providing. This is a ticking time bomb because as much as we in the west like to navel gaze about bringing "democracy" to these places our vested interest is firmly in keeping them producing rather then consuming oil.
This table tells you all you need to know:
COUNTRY: Libya/Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
POPULATION IN MILLIONS 1.03 1.35 1.99 3.04 4.33 5.31
It really isnt all we need to know LDB. If these oil producing countries (the richest per capita in the world) spread the wealth (as some do) everyone would be quite happy and wealthy - rather than self appointed "monarchies" or "leaders".
Not sure what point you're trying to make here... Im talking about the impact on western interests not about how lovely and egalitarian it will be for the citizenry of these places.
If these places reduce their dependency on exporting oil to the west (through marketisation/diversification/democratisation whatever you want to call it) then we have a problem. We are no longer propping up tin-pot dictators in return for favourable contracts and suddenly the rules of the game change.
Its impossible to know for sure what the long term implications of this will be but my money is on more expensive oil and a drop in economic prosperity in the west.
RossieGooner wrote:
Why is it bad news for "us" ? "we" aint in libya.
Increased petrol prices and heating bills.
I was listening to item on radio that some "expert oil trader" said that OPEC have more than enough to supply the west even if Libya's supply was cut off. The increase in prices would be purely down to speculation and would reduce again when it was evident that loss of oil supply from Libya was not affecting the ability to service the West's oil demand.
True but you need price competition and removing a competitor from the marketplace will only serve to increase prices eventually.
Its not democracy that these places are really calling out for - its market consumer capitalism which just so happens to be associated with democracy.
These oil states have experienced massive population booms in the last 50 years which has created a massive demand for jobs which a one-dimensional rentier economy simply has no way of providing. This is a ticking time bomb because as much as we in the west like to navel gaze about bringing "democracy" to these places our vested interest is firmly in keeping them producing rather then consuming oil.
This table tells you all you need to know:
COUNTRY: Libya/Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
POPULATION IN MILLIONS 1.03 1.35 1.99 3.04 4.33 5.31
Doesn't matter - tens of millions of Chinese starting to drive cars instead of riding bikes will dwarf anything else - in terms of oil consumption, and in terms of environmental controls.
So, what Libyans may consume themselves, or similar sized countries, is barely here nor there.
Its not just what they physically consume, its about a drastic change in the dynamic of oil production-consumption in the world economy.
China, while no doubt being a problem, does not ultimately change this dynamic so its a different kind of problem.
QuartzGooner wrote:
Increased petrol prices and heating bills.
I was listening to item on radio that some "expert oil trader" said that OPEC have more than enough to supply the west even if Libya's supply was cut off. The increase in prices would be purely down to speculation and would reduce again when it was evident that loss of oil supply from Libya was not affecting the ability to service the West's oil demand.
True but you need price competition and removing a competitor from the marketplace will only serve to increase prices eventually.
Its not democracy that these places are really calling out for - its market consumer capitalism which just so happens to be associated with democracy.
These oil states have experienced massive population booms in the last 50 years which has created a massive demand for jobs which a one-dimensional rentier economy simply has no way of providing. This is a ticking time bomb because as much as we in the west like to navel gaze about bringing "democracy" to these places our vested interest is firmly in keeping them producing rather then consuming oil.
This table tells you all you need to know:
COUNTRY: Libya/Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
POPULATION IN MILLIONS 1.03 1.35 1.99 3.04 4.33 5.31
Doesn't matter - tens of millions of Chinese starting to drive cars instead of riding bikes will dwarf anything else - in terms of oil consumption, and in terms of environmental controls.
So, what Libyans may consume themselves, or similar sized countries, is barely here nor there.
Its not just what they physically consume, its about a drastic change in the dynamic of oil production-consumption in the world economy.
China, while no doubt being a problem, does not ultimately change this dynamic so its a different kind of problem.
eh??
They change eveything, mate. That's why they're tieing up contracts left, right and centre.
The dynamic is simple - china need tons of oil, the middle east and africa will supply it, thus affecting everything else, more than a few people consuming in the oil producing countries.
Also, watching your carbon footprint in the west, won't mean shit in the end...
Hardly worth getting our knickers in a twist over.
