Libya today??

Nitro:

Yes that's your opinion but what about the European and UK's reaction. Do you find the situation at all "unsettling"?

SuperDave

SuperDave wrote:Nitro:

Yes that's your opinion but what about the European and UK's reaction. Do you find the situation at all "unsettling"?

SuperDave

Unsettling? Yes and no it is frustating watching people having to die for freedom.
But it does not make me worrybfor myself at all.

In a broader sense Libya represents a major destabilizing influene in the region as other Muslim nations may soon follow suit to toss their rulers with attendant chaos following. Overthrowing the goverment is one thing but what comes after is likely only more chaos.

Additionally the possible cessation of Libian oil production looms heavilly.

But may be that's deeper than you want to go with the subject.

SuperDave

SuperDave wrote:In a broader sense Libya represents a major destabilizing influene in the region as other Muslim nations may soon follow suit to toss their rulers with attendant chaos following. Overthrowing the goverment is one thing but what comes after is likely only more chaos.

Additionally the possible cessation of Libian oil production looms heavilly.

But may be that's deeper than you want to go with the subject.

SuperDave

It happened earlier this year and the middle east and north Africa was in turmoil I think it started with Libya and spread from there, the last thing we need is more countries to end up the way Somalia is.
But yes that will make oil prices soar but maybe this will motivate people to develop lower consumption vehicles further.

nitroairplane wrote:

SuperDave wrote:In a broader sense Libya represents a major destabilizing influene in the region as other Muslim nations may soon follow suit to toss their rulers with attendant chaos following. Overthrowing the goverment is one thing but what comes after is likely only more chaos.

Additionally the possible cessation of Libian oil production looms heavilly.

But may be that's deeper than you want to go with the subject.

SuperDave

It happened earlier this year and the middle east and north Africa was in turmoil I think it started with Libya and spread from there, the last thing we need is more countries to end up the way Somalia is.
But yes that will make oil prices soar but maybe this will motivate people to develop lower consumption vehicles further.

Yes, but as in so many world events, one must think beyond the events to the underlying causes and possible outcomes. The critcal "oil" factor is always a consideration but it goes far beyond vehicle consumption; power generation, manufacturing etc.

For the US or any other nation to "jump in" to Libya is to risk envolvement in another enduring conflict such as Viet Nam or, more recently Iraq and A'stan thus requiring huge commitments of economic resources and risking lives as is certainly the case in the US.

But, perhaps more perceptively, throughout the world there is an element that encourages and flourishes by such bold adventures. A multi-faceted problem as the same element weilds great influence in governments buy "buying" politicians who are self-serving in themselves.

Here in the US, Washington, DC (WDC), and not the system, is "broken" needing a major re-make. Witness the Obama administration which was built with the promises of high hopes. Yet when those hopes went through the "grinder" that is WDC they soon met some brutal realities which caused them to vanish.

The '12 Presidential and Congressional elections here will yield critical results of the utmost importance. An electable alternative to Obama has yet to come forward with a strong showing as the Republican Party seems to be flumoxed. The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) is a noisy yet ill-defined alternative where as the GOP (Grand Old Party) seems stuck in neutral with nothing but hyper "ventilation" flowing freely.

Quite the quandry, eh?

SuperDave

Yes the world is i a right old state.
Especially the west we are getting too involved in other countries affairs and letting our countries get in a state.
Yes we should help these countries but only once we are stable our selves.

And we do not need another middleastern conflict.

nitroairplane wrote:Yes the world is i a right old state.
Especially the west we are getting too involved in other countries affairs and letting our countries get in a state.
Yes we should help these countries but only once we are stable our selves.

And we do not need another middleastern conflict.

And the irony is that most Americans consider our country a "democracy" which it is NOT. It may be run along democratic lines but it is actually a constitutional republic, a term which is rarely understood.

Historically the typical democracy lasts but 200 years as did Athens. And the critics of America are quick to remind us. The world "democracy" descends from the ancient Greeks' "demo" meaning people and "cracy" meaning "rule". Implicit in this is the participation of citizens and not representatives.

This may seem to be only parsing but it is drawing some clear distictions essential to understanding the nature of governments and why they do want they do.

SuperDave

yes in theory most political systems should work but NONE do i myself would like to see how the west in general including the USA and Europe would cope as socialist countries.
that would be an interesting experiment.

All political parties change once they get power.
one of the most staggering changes undergone by a political party was the National Socialist or Nazi party of Germany they promised socialism but brought Fascism.
but that is another very long and complicated story that would deserve another thread.

Nitro:

I'd opine that UK Parlimentary Democracy excells over the US system:

- Limited political campaign duration (6 weeks)
- The "vote of confidence" mechanism can "toss" a sitting government
- The House of Lords is mostly for show and tradition where our Senate is uneccessary IMO. (The Senate is an impediment to progress in many cases) One of our states, Nebraska, functions well under a unicameral (one house) system.

And So many more.

SD

yes but we have both had our share of Bush's and Blair's.

nitroairplane wrote:yes but we have both had our share of Bush's and Blair's.

Do you mean that they acted on their own meddle? Dream on!

SD

no but they were the ones that acted upon it.

nitroairplane wrote:no but they were the ones that acted upon it.

True. We call GWB "The Cowboy President" because he rode rough-shod during his administrations and yet he was re-elected unlike President GHWB (GWB's father).

There is lingering controversy here regarding GWB's re-election which Liberals claim was actually decided by the Conservative majority in our Supreme Court. In that election GWB ran against Democratic Senator Al Gore and involved the controversy over the "hanging chads" which were found on computer issued ballots.

But I am digressing. The essential political problem of our countries today is the extreme polarization of our political parties and they focus too much on their own benefit which usually means re-election at whatever the cost.

SD

yes that is why we have the Liberal Democrat party so they nearly always come 3rd in our elections and this time round when the parties came too close to call a winner we all looked to the lib dems and then they decided to side with the torries and they are now to "blame" for our current situation even though it has been building up to this climax since when Thatcher cam to power.
wow i need some commas in there somewhere.

nitroairplane wrote:yes that is why we have the Liberal Democrat party so they nearly always come 3rd in our elections and this time round when the parties came too close to call a winner we all looked to the lib dems and then they decided to side with the torries and they are now to "blame" for our current situation even though it has been building up to this climax since when Thatcher cam to power.
wow i need some commas in there somewhere.

Ah, the "coalition" comes into play!

Why is it that went the UK becomes troubled they default to the Conservative Party?

We like to remember how W. Churchill swapped sides.

SD

Well what happens is:-
The conservatives get us in trouble then get voted out.
Labour get voted in and swear they will change it. they don't.
Then they get given the benefit of the doubt and get re-elected and screw up the countr even more and get voted out.
Then the torries get voted in and they make it so bad people start protesting then a fee months later start to riot.
Then we vote in labour and they entry and clean up the torries mess they do a half decent job and get re-elected..... It goes on and on like this and pretty much always has as long as we have been a democracy.
Sk I guess what happens is: we think we want something,we get it and then find out what we had before was actually ok and we moan a bit.......

An overabundance of political parties is more trecherous than too few. As Gemany disintegrated pre-WWII, Nazi's were elected without achieving a majority of the popular vote. Hilter was never elected to anything but had himself appointed Chancellor by the Nazi Party which held the balance of power in the Bundistag and the Reichstad.

Once in power, Hilter deposed President Paul von Hindenberg and you know the rest from there. Then came the various aggressions in defiance of the spineless League of Nations as well as the formation of the Axis Power arrangement with Italy and Japan.

So in so many ways this is reflective of many wars built upon unresolved differences. As nations fragment this seems inevitable.

SD

Yes and it appears the situation cannot be righted as if we intervene we will gain another enemy yet if we leave it we risk another fascist regime what to do what to do.

Just got out and ran my vid of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odessy" (1965). Althought set in the future, the film begins with a perception of the very distant past with ape-like creature squabling over a bone. One apes pick up another bones an wails on his competitors. After he drives off the other apes, the camera zooms in on the aggressive ape's face. As the sound track increases in volume it is apparent the aggressive ape realizes the power of using force.

The scene then shifts to the future and the computer "Hal" who realize that he too many assume control of his setting to his own advantage. Which he does.........................

Great Sci fi stuff which, if projected, explains a great deal about man and man's deeds. As historian van Loon observes: "History is the story of man's inhumanity to man."

Comment?

SuperDave

Is it not amazing how old films with the worst image quality can paint a more vivid picture than any 3d or hd film ever has.
Just think of Hitchcock's films simple yet complex and brilliant The Birds and Psycho amazing.

nitroairplane wrote:Is it not amazing how old films with the worst image quality can paint a more vivid picture than any 3d or hd film ever has.
amazing.

But what about "Avatar" of the same genre.?

SuperDave

Yes but we must all admit avatar was just glorified Pocahontis and even the plot was shakey but it is the best 3d film yet apart from that on YouTube of the Pitts

Back to Libya:

The US is likely going to take as "pass" on getting more involved because of the critical '12 Presidential and Congressional elections coming in November of that year. To enter or advocate entering yet another war without an end game would be political suicide.

Haven't we (the US) done enough of that already? US idealists side with the rebels philosophically but would shrink from further participation.

Across the pond, the critical oil factor may prompt involvement in Libya. (Don't kid yourself, there is FAR more to the equation than MPG!)

(closing out on this one too)

Super Dave