13,120,000,000/100 = War

Ok. I'm guessing the 13b is the total population of earth and 100 is the number of countries or maybe religions?

13 bn is the profits shell announced this week and 100 is the number of dead British Soldiers in Iraq.

13 bn is the profits shell announced this week and 100 is the number of dead British Soldiers in Iraq.
and investors say it isn't enough:rolleyes:

13 bn is the profits shell announced this week and 100 is the number of dead British Soldiers in Iraq.

Oh- Catch your drift. Incredible...

Interestingly

13,120,000,000/1 = No War

were 13,120,000,000 is the profits of shell, and 1 is the prime ministers son.

I am amazed noone has anything to say on this thread, it seems generally accepted that the Iraq war has not been fought for pure moral reasons and that oil has played its part. Even cynical as I am, I am sure that deaths of UK or US (or any other nationalities) soldiers have an impact on their respective politicians. (even if they only see it in terms of a vote loser).

So how do they balance the two?

I have new found respect for politicians on this matter,( I had virtually none perviuosly) they have had to answer this question, but even on the politics section of this forum noone has any idea how to respond.

I guess the lack of alternative ideas or expression of disgust, means Bush and Blair have done us proud, and that all other threads with their anti Bush and Anti Blair propaganda are easy statements from people who don't have hard decisions to make against those who do?

I do find it interesting that the gas companies have been charging higher prices due to "higher oil prices", although they have posted record profits. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that's not really related to this thread, but I was thinking of it because you mentioned the amount of Shell's profits...

I am amazed noone has anything to say on this thread,

I suppose the depth of the respones are proportonal to extent of effort you put into exploring the premise of the topic.

Anyway, I'm taking you are proposing the whole war thing is farce, which I think is the general consenus around here...:confused:

I guess the lack of alternative ideas or expression of disgust, means Bush and Blair have done us proud, and that all other threads with their anti Bush and Anti Blair propaganda are easy statements from people who don't have hard decisions to make against those who do?
Well, for claiming to be a cynic this is quite a "silver lining" point of view. I don't know why Rich and Colin haven't tossed their standard diatribe into the thread, but I haven't posted because I don't think there's anything to say on the topic. I sincerely doubt those who have kept quiet have done so because they can't come up with a better solution to social problems than going to war. Like you said, it's generally accepted that Bush went to war with Iraq for personal and financial reasons; you'll get no argument from me. I would consider it great stretch of my debating skills to play devil's advocate and actually come up with some way to justify Bush's actions.

I don't know why Rich and Colin haven't tossed their standard diatribe into the thread,


Use the search function, we've made our feelings known on numerous threads.
How odd that you should label it as diatribe :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How odd that you should label it as diatribe :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

di·a·tribe
n.
A bitter, abusive denunciation.

Why do you think it's odd? It seems pretty accurate from over here... ;) :D
As I've said before, you guys don't exactly bring on the warm fuzzies with your posts. :p

As I've said before, you guys don't exactly bring on the warm fuzzies with your posts. :p
How can anybody get warm fuzzies over Bush and the War in Iraq ?:confused: :p

How can anybody get warm fuzzies over Bush and the War in Iraq ?:confused: :p

True, but the average citizen over here doesn't have any more control over that situation than the average British citizen. :(

Use the search function, we've made our feelings known on numerous threads.
Really? Gee whiz... I hadn't noticed! :rolleyes:

Really? Gee whiz... I hadn't noticed! :rolleyes:
then take more care next time :rolleyes:

13,120,000,000/100 = war?

If thats correct the war is justified on financial terms.

If its not correct - pensions, mortgages , jobs and government revenue can all suffer.


It seems, selfless as we all are, its a unanimous vote for the second option.

I suppose the depth of the respones are proportonal to extent of effort you put into exploring the premise of the topic.


I suppose the depth of the respones are proportonal to the thought the overwhelming antiwar lobby happily slagging off Bush and Blair has explored the premise of the topic?

True, but the average citizen over here doesn't have any more control over that situation than the average British citizen. :(

Theoretically we do as our democratic processes allow us to vote out bad governments. Trouble is I don't recall there ever having been any other kind.

...I suppose the depth of the respones are proportonal to the thought the overwhelming antiwar lobby happily slagging off Bush and Blair has explored the premise of the topic?

I'm not quite sure I follow this so I tried leaving out a few adj's, etc and it still wasn't clear;

I suppose the depth of the respones are proportonal to the thought the antiwar lobby has explored the premise of the topic?

So I tried again;

I suppose the depth of the respones are proportonal to the thought the antiwar lobby has put into exploring the premise of the topic?

And this kind of made sense. In which case I'd say they probably put much more effort into it than we are...(until now :p )

I suppose the depth of the respones are proportonal to extent of effort you put into exploring the premise of the topic.
i have to agree.
Anyway, I'm taking you are proposing the whole war thing is farce, which I think is the general consenus around here...:confused:i agree again, but it's also much bigger than some people imagine.

Have a listen (http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=01/28/2003)

do try to listen to the whole thing.

[NOTE: i initially put the wrong link. it's fixed. should be an interview with joseph cirincione.]

I don't see many queues outside financial institutions of antiwar people desparate to give back their ill gotten gain.


War is bad, Bush is bad, profits are bad. (but I'll keep the cash) .

That seems to be the general consensus or am I missing something.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

i have to agree.
i agree again, but it's also much bigger than some people imagine.

Have a listen (http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=01/28/2003)

do try to listen to the whole thing.

Darn... Couldn't hook into the server. :mad:

I don't see many queues outside financial institutions of antiwar people desparate to give back their ill gotten gain.


War is bad, Bush is bad, profits are bad. (but I'll keep the cash) .

That seems to be the general consensus or am I missing something.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I think I'm getting it now... Keeping the cash and complaining about the war is a bit hypocritical... Good point. I wonder if the CEO of the oil company has made his or his company's position on the war public?

For a big company it doesn’t take a lot to go from making a lot of money to very little. Look at Tesco, they make very small margins on each item but the demand is so great that record profits are released. You can’t just look at the profit amounts and then stay with a one track mind.

If prices rise the oil company will be hedged against these prices changes but still must increase prices as the next time they enact a hedge it will be at a premium. So there will be a time when they are receiving a high price for their product but will have a relatively low cost through hedging.

In terms of links with war et al’ you can go on forever with debate and assumptions. My view is that something had to be done about Saddam although it was done in the wrong way. It was decided not democratically but more by the consensus among a few. Democracy should be instilled in both Afghanistan and Iraq as then the future possibility of terrorists and their actions is vastly reduced.

I suppose the depth of the respones are proportonal to the thought the antiwar lobby has put into exploring the premise of the topic?

The fact that the antiwar people do not feel any need to respond to this thread, would seem to me that they have not looked at the benefits of war, or simply choose to ignore them for whatever reason.

Alternatively - the cost of the war overwhelms any benefits that there might be? In which case they could have responded and outlined that point - but they have not.

So the lack of response would indicate that the antiwar lobby has not thought about it and should be ignored as loud but ignorant?

Sorry to keep being so dense here...

So you started with the dead soldiers, the profit of the oil companies, and the war. They are inter-related and the war is basically a bad thing.

Now you seem to be concerned that the anti-war people don't have a response.

Typically, I would assume a response to take a counter position, but in this case that would make no sense. So the response you were expecting is for the antiwar people to jump on your bandwagon and bash the oil companies and war effort?

I'm not sure who is truly anti-war on this forum.

What is war? Invading another country because you don't like the leader? Defending your country against invaders?

Most people are anti the Iraq war because it it illegal and was sold to the public on lies and false information (both in the US and UK) There are various reasons as to why GWB did it. But we all see the death toll rise every day and just want it to end.

However, if an invading force was to try to invade the USA then naturally they would fight back as we would (and did) if (for example) the French invaded in the UK. If that means a war then so be it.

My opinion is that we all would defend our own to the hilt.

Col

I'm not sure who is truly anti-war on this forum.

What is war? Invading another country because you don't like the leader? Defending your country against invaders?

Most people are anti the Iraq war because it it illegal and was sold to the public on lies and false information (both in the US and UK) There are various reasons as to why GWB did it. But we all see the death toll rise every day and just want it to end.

However, if an invading force was to try to invade the USA then naturally they would fight back as we would (and did) if (for example) the French invaded in the UK. If that means a war then so be it.

My opinion is that we all would defend our own to the hilt.

Col
I agree. I think most people also supported the war in Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait. There are good reasons to go to war (specifically, in defense of oneself or in defense of another against an aggressor) and there may also be economic benefits to war, but those benefits are not a good reason, and there certainly is no formula. If there truly are people in the Pentagon scriblling in pencil:

IF (Estimated revenue from military contracts + Estimated savings on petroleum expenses) / (Estimated number of troops needed to perform mission * Cost of training, equipping and transporting them + Expected casualties * Cost of death benefits)) > 1 THEN Go to war

then God help us all.

- no consideration of deaths and finance is better?

God help us all!

- no consideration of deaths and finance is better?

God help us all!
Nice twist, Chubby Checker. I said "reason", not "consideration". Soldiers lives and financial costs are important considerations in how you manage a war. In fact, management of resources tends to determine the outcome of a prolonged conflict more than any other factor (in my opinion, I may be wrong). What I said was a favorable cost/benefit ratio is not an acceptable reason to go to war.

I presume the financial cost can be used as a reason not to go to war ( ie its just but it can't be afforded) , but should never be used as a reason to go to war?

I presume the financial cost can be used as a reason not to go to war ( ie its just but it can't be afforded) , but should never be used as a reason to go to war?

Now that's a interesting assertion...Hum...

I was wondering why Kraj thought financial reasons should be considered at all, he already stated its no reason to go to war. (so why consider it).

So it must be he is considering it as a reason not to go to war?

How about this acid test; If one of GWB's daughters had a Iraqi resistance fighter holding a gun to her head, would GWB be so quick to say let's fight?

I was wondering why Kraj thought financial reasons should be considered at all, he already stated its no reason to go to war. (so why consider it).

So it must be he is considering it as a reason not to go to war?
I already explained that costs are important to consider because they are a practical necessity of war. You can't wage a war if you can't pay for it. No matter how strongly you believe in the cause, if you don't have the resources or don't manage them well, then a war will not go very well for you. However...!
I presume the financial cost can be used as a reason not to go to war ( ie its just but it can't be afforded) , but should never be used as a reason to go to war?
... I don't think cost has anything to do with whether or not one should go to war, it's about whether one can. If a country stands to financially benefit from a war, that means they can wage war, not that they should. If a country believes they should go to war then they should, and only then determine what resources they can commit.

I don't see many queues outside financial institutions of antiwar people desparate to give back their ill gotten gain.


War is bad, Bush is bad, profits are bad. (but I'll keep the cash) .

That seems to be the general consensus or am I missing something.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Who in the UK do you think are making a healthy profit if any out of the war in Iraq, unless I'm missing something here it's we the taxpayers who are paying for this ? :confused:

You can't wage a war if you can't pay for it.
Depends who's backing you - the USA very kindly donated weapons etc to the IRA so they could continue with their atroscities in Ireland and the UK mainland.:rolleyes:

Col

Who in the UK do you think are making a healthy profit if any out of the war in Iraq, unless I'm missing something here it's we the taxpayers who are paying for this ? :confused:
Yes we are paying for it. It was all explained in Fahrenheit 9/11 - GWB has a finger in many pies, as does his father. They are securing very lucrative contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq and doing very nicely out of it thank you.

Even GWB (senior) has a mosaic picture of himself in one of the top Baghdad hotels.

Col

Even GWB (senior) has a mosaic picture of himself in one of the top Baghdad hotels.

Col

Baghdad travelodge.....

Baghdad travelodge.....


I'm afraid Haliburton's far too busy cleaning up in the States to be bothered with re-building its boys damage :rolleyes:

Baghdad travelodge.....
I'll bet they still charge you £50 a night:rolleyes:

Col

I'll bet they still charge you £50 a night:rolleyes:

Col
If it's owned by an American corporation

Depends who's backing you - the USA very kindly donated weapons etc to the IRA so they could continue with their atroscities in Ireland and the UK mainland.:rolleyes:

Col

The USA ? and I thought it was just some hypocritical "Irish"-Americans.:confused:

Brian

The USA ? and I thought it was just some hypocritical "Irish"-Americans.:confused:

Brian
Yes I was a bit generic there, I didn't mean the whole of the USA, I meant the Noraid brigade based in the USA.

Col

I've noticed that I'm getting a bit Bolshie as the days to retirement tick by:D

Brian

I've noticed that I'm getting a bit Bolshie as the days to retirement tick by:D

Brian
No, you were right to point out that it was a small portion of the US populace that funded the IRA.

Plus, you were right to point out that we have problems here in Essex (in the other thread)

Its actually nice to know someone reads my posts :rolleyes:

Col

Depends who's backing you...
Good point. I forgot about that.

I've noticed that I'm getting a bit Bolshie as the days to retirement tick by:D

Brian
How long is it now Bri?

Col

How long is it now Bri?

Col

Officially March 17 is R day but as that is a Friday which I don't work plus I have hols left not sure which will be my last day in.

Not sure what they are going to do when I'm gone , I hate to blow my own trumpet but got in this morning and our finance dept had not been able to print since Wed, our expensive tech support blamed Sun systems who blamed the rest of the world:rolleyes:

It did take 10 mins to fix , but then I am a slow typist;)

Brian

Officially March 17 is R day but as that is a Friday which I don't work plus I have hols left not sure which will be my last day in.

Not sure what they are going to do when I'm gone , I hate to blow my own trumpet but got in this morning and our finance dept had not been able to print since Wed, our expensive tech support blamed Sun systems who blamed the rest of the world:rolleyes:

It did take 10 mins to fix , but then I am a slow typist;)

Brian

Think you could sign on as a part time consultant to fix these type problems ;)

Think you could sign on as a part time consultant to fix these type problems ;)
Then you can charge £30 per hour as an outside consultant

Col

Then you can charge £30 per hour as an outside consultant

Col

52.8690 USD / hour - I'd work for that :D

52.8690 USD / hour - I'd work for that :D
minimum 2 hours, plus expenses;)

Col

You guys want to be my agent for 10% :D

Brian

Then you can charge £30 per hour as an outside consultant

Col

Doesn't everybody earn that here anyway ? :confused:

Doesn't everybody earn that here anyway ? :confused:

Is that how you can afford to stay logged into the forum 24/7? Work 2 hours a day and your set? :p :p :p

Is that how you can afford to stay logged into the forum 24/7? Work 2 hours a day and your set? :p :p :p
I'll have you know I had to work last Thursday,Friday, Saturday and I'm working again tomorrow. :eek:
How the hell am I supposed to finish my kitchen with all these interruptions ?:mad:

Is there something insulting I can say that will prompt you into a working frenzie? Anything GWB, etc? :) :) :)

Is there something insulting I can say that will prompt you into a working frenzie? Anything GWB, etc? :) :) :)
I'm too laid back to get into a frenzie over, or at work. Why rush today when there's tomorrow ? :cool: :D