When do we get to vote for or against war ?

[Rupert_Baehr]

...

 

It was firmly established by antifascist in this thread http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=824560&page=2 that you clearly don't know the first thing about economics Rupert_Baehr. You should stop lambasting other people for not reading things that you yourself haven’t read.

 

I'm cherry pickng - demolishing the crap without having to dig out the stable. (I'm too busyu just now, but 'being busy' isn't an excuse.

 

Back at you:

 

You accused me (through your post quoting anti-fascist) of unconscionable behaviour.

 

I'm not in a position to defend myself, so I require you to provide absolute proof. Should you decline to do so, then I will be obliged to sue you and your sponsors to recover costs to compensate me for the damage you have recklessly and negligently caused to my good name.

 

Life can be fun!

 

I knew all along that there was a reason I went to Law school.

[Bing'o'Merry]

This was your mastery of economics in that thread;

 

Originally Posted by Rupert_Baehr

"When the Euro started, one Pound bought 1.65 Euros. In 2007, One Pound bought 1.47 Euros but now that the Euro is under such great pressure, one Pound only buys 1.10 Euros.

The Euro is under great pressure and the Pound is strong. That's why the pound is worth less than 2/3 of what it was worth when the wimpy Euro was founded."

 

As Antifascist so rightly pointed out;

 

Originally Posted by antifascist

"If a pound only buys you 1.1 euro's today when yesterday it bought you 1.6 euro's then the pound has gone DOWN in value against the euro. The pound is WEAKER than it was, despite all those troubles the euro zone is having. This is BAD for Britain."

 

So any acedemic qualifications in economics you claim to have had, you must have either forgotten or they must not be worth the paper.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I suggest you read the previous posts (all of them) the be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

 

I'm in a bad mood (busy at work and getting ****** about by time-wasting clients.)

 

My masters have a few bob to spare and they've suggested I go after the minnows.

 

You have suggested that I am financially incompetent . Retract or put your money where your mouth is and I'll see you in court. It could be fun.

 

Please send me your address for service.

[Bing'o'Merry]

I'm not in a position to defend myself,

 

I don't see why?

 

so I require you to provide absolute proof.

 

You post on here like your an authority on economics when clearly you don't know the fundamentals. People can go back and read all your posts and decide for themselves. There's all the proof you need.

 

Should you decline to do so, then I will be obliged to sue you and your sponsors to recover costs to compensate me for the damage you have recklessly and negligently caused to my good name.

 

Ha Ha! That's hilarious. Good luck finding me.

[Rupert_Baehr]

This was your mastery of economics in that thread;

 

Originally Posted by Rupert_Baehr

"When the Euro started, one Pound bought 1.65 Euros. In 2007, One Pound bought 1.47 Euros but now that the Euro is under such great pressure, one Pound only buys 1.10 Euros.

The Euro is under great pressure and the Pound is strong. That's why the pound is worth less than 2/3 of what it was worth when the wimpy Euro was founded."

 

As Antifascist so rightly pointed out;

 

Originally Posted by antifascist

"If a pound only buys you 1.1 euro's today when yesterday it bought you 1.6 euro's then the pound has gone DOWN in value against the euro. The pound is WEAKER than it was, despite all those troubles the euro zone is having. This is BAD for Britain."

 

So any acedemic qualifications in economics you claim to have had, you must have either forgotten or they must not be worth the paper.

 

 

Duhhhhhh!

 

If one pound bought 1.6 Euros when the Euro was launched and it now buys only 1.1 Euros, are you really incapable of doing the sums?

 

Have you heard of the word 'sarcasm'? do you know what it means?

 

I may well have been trading currencies before your arse was as big as a shirt button.

 

You - through the incompetent ministrations of your friend 'Bingó'Merry (who can't even spell 'academic' have damaged my own good name and my trading name. I intend to recver damages.

 

Please give me your Address for service.

[Tony]

There’s totally different scenarios, looking at your example the Argentineans would be attacking British citizens on British territory, the government would be obliged to protect both the sovereign interest and the populations well being, a decision clearly would have to be made by government. I see where the OP has a point though, wars or *humanitarian assistance*, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, internal conflicts such as Libya, Syria in fact any country which is not affecting us directly. I for one would like a decision, in the same way I’d also like a decision when it comes to foreign aid.

 

As a country we’re far too quick to get involved in the internal disputes or conflicts of those countries, especially in areas where they have natural resources such as oil, we always support the regimes which give the Americans the best deal, so we can pick up the scraps from their table. I don’t see much *humanitarian assistance* being given to other countries were the population appears to be oppressed by some crazed dictator.

 

If our sons & daughters are to put their lives on the line then they do it for the security of this country, not some dictator who’s presently in favour to the US, whilst spending the UK tax revenues on foreign countries, whilst our own OAP are worrying about their future, or their abilities to meet shopping needs or utility bills is unacceptable. Other countries affairs not our business.

A mature view is that the UK has interests in many nations with all sorts of regimes - good, bad and indifferent - and that HMG is protecting the interests of our citizens at home and abroad. Sometimes those interests are more esoteric than it simply being British turf.

 

"It's just about oil, we shouldn't be there" is a very limited and naive view.

[kimba]

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7948702&postcount=79

 

That just about sums that up then.

 

Good post.

[Bing'o'Merry]

If one pound bought 1.6 Euros when the Euro was launched and it now buys only 1.1 Euros, are you really incapable of doing the sums?

 

You were arguing that the pound is getting STRONGER because you can buy LESS euros with it than you could.

 

Have you heard of the word 'sarcasm'? do you know what it means?

 

You weren't being srcastic. You were just plain wrong.

 

I may well have been trading currencies before your arse was as big as a shirt button.

 

Then how can you make such a fundamental error?

 

You - through the incompetent ministrations of your friend 'Bingó'Merry (who can't even spell 'academic' have damaged my own good name and my trading name. I intend to recver damages.

 

If spelling is so important to you learn how to spell "recover" before you start getting all worked up over it.

 

I looked up your "trading name?" on Google and the only results were from posts here on Sheffield forum and from people directories. You can't be doing many trades and certainly none online so I expect if there were any damages they would be very very small. I also very much doubt I can be sued for saying you know nothing about economics in a post on sheffieldforum.co.uk. I think you would have a hard time making that stick.

 

Please give me your Address for service.

 

What does this even mean? If you had any knowledge of court cases or procedures you would be going straight to the moderators at Sheffield forum and not waste your time asking me for my address. You must have gone to law school at the same place you studied economics (Did you do that before or after you became a currency speculator for the army)?

 

I'm bored talking to you now. You obviously like making things up and post on here your right wing zombie opinions because you don't know any better. I don't think anybody of any worth will be strongly influenced by you, especially now I've called you on it.

[Bing'o'Merry]

A mature view is that the UK has interests in many nations with all sorts of regimes - good, bad and indifferent - and that HMG is protecting the interests of our citizens at home and abroad. Sometimes those interests are more esoteric than it simply being British turf.

 

You talk about the "U.K. interest" as if you and I, David Cameron, Rupert Murdoch and BP all share the same interest.

 

What’s often referred to as the "national interest" is usually the "economic success" of companies or things beneficial to friends of the wealthy elite. I do not share an interest with David Cameron who will be interested in all his multimillionaire backbenchers who have "interests" of their own in all sorts of shady or criminal dealings. The interests of these people are far more likely to include their wallets, power, covering up their excesses and crimes, preventing democracy and seizing oil. These are however the people in power so they describe those interests as "the national interest".

 

I think it would be in the national interest of most citizens in Britain to bring all our troops home from overseas endeavours, to fully nationalise the banking sector and to impose tight regulation on companies. Things that benefit we the people, like representation, accountability and transparency, regulation, taxing the rich, labour unions and so on are ignored or dismissed as AGAINST the national interest because they don't benefit and in some cases restrict the power of the elite oligarchs .

 

"It's just about oil, we shouldn't be there" is a very limited and naive view.

 

I agree that there are lots of interacting forces and interests at work in something as complicated as a nation going to war, however the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are largely about oil and we shouldn’t actually be there. Therefore I disagree that this point is necessarily naïve. A more naïve view would be to believe that this was in some way protecting British citizens from terrorism or WMD’s as we were sold.

 

It would be naïve to ignore a fundamental characteristic of almost all governments, that they lie, all the time and especially when they take us to war. It would be to naïve of us to ignore the power structures in our society and the potential beneficiaries of any military action we are being asked to support. To blindly accept on face value our governments rhetoric for why we MUST go to war is not just naïve it’s downright irresponsible.

[Tony]

There are Reds under the beds too.