We’re aproaching the end of the centenary of the start of the “The Great War”. What significance can we glean from this perspective?

I’d suggest that the general humanist response to the Great War: “this should never happen again” – was perhaps the first really widespread acknowledgement that Homo sapiens is a seriously troubled species, in need of very basic redesign. And I’d further suggest that this project is still on the drawing board, largely in the form of blank pieces of paper.

I would say war and conflict is pretty much an integral nature of our species and the Great War was only shocking because of the realisation of its capability and capacity in the Industrial Age.

(shrugs) Unfortunately it was not the war to end all wars after all so I think probably nothing much was learnt.
But WW1 was by any standards a particularly stupid and pointless war: a real knuckleheaded and futile squabble for resources and territory. At least in the case of WW2 you can just about convince yourself it was about something.

For Australia WW1 was the costliest war evah, with 60000 dead and tens of thousands more permanently injured.

Oxymoron

The way evolution works, cooperation with your immediate group and conflict with neighbouring groups works very well, from a gene multiplication perspective, so long as weapons are crude and not very effective.

Now that weapons are sophisticated and very effective, this is not the optimum strategy, but for the new optimum genes to become dominant will require the killing of billions of people.

Fortunately we now have memes as well as genes, so there is some hope that we can convert the “immediate group” into everyone on the planet.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The way evolution works, cooperation with your immediate group and conflict with neighbouring groups works very well, from a gene multiplication perspective, so long as weapons are crude and not very effective.

Now that weapons are sophisticated and very effective, this is not the optimum strategy, but for the new optimum genes to become dominant will require the killing of billions of people.

Fortunately we now have memes as well as genes, so there is some hope that we can convert the “immediate group” into everyone on the planet.

>>everyone left on the planet. fixed.

AwesomeO said:

I would say war and conflict is pretty much an integral nature of our species and the Great War was only shocking because of the realisation of its capability and capacity in the Industrial Age.

Does that mean that WWII was equally shocking due to the use of nuclear weapons?

Divine Angel said:

AwesomeO said:

I would say war and conflict is pretty much an integral nature of our species and the Great War was only shocking because of the realisation of its capability and capacity in the Industrial Age.

Does that mean that WWII was equally shocking due to the use of nuclear weapons?

More an increase in capability and capacity, by that stage the world was largely inured to civilian targeting, mass civilian casualties and cities being levelled, just not as quickly and by a single plane. After the war the technology being only available to a few players did change the strategic outlooks though.

It did produce some great poetry and poets like Henry Reed, Siegfried Sasoon etc.
Who could forget this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UKpZxM-c9w

So as you can see, sure there was a bit of useless waste of young lives, but the culture and blossoming of arts and humanities in song and verse is still enriching us today.

It does make you wonder that perhaps the dominant species on a planet is the most aggressive and unfortunately combined with intelligence and tool using capacity means it has the means to bring about its own destruction in a very short time span.

Humans never seen to learn from history, we still have war, no amount of deaths in pointless conflicts seem to make any difference, we still allow nations to commit mass genocide, and we don’t value life as a collective species, we claim we do but our actions contradict this. I do hope humanity is at the tipping point were we become a much more enlightened species in the next couple of centuries (assuming we survive this long) and eradicate most of our negative traits.

wars do not make one great

Dropbear said:

wars do not make one great

No avoid them does, easy to go to war

dv said:

(shrugs) Unfortunately it was not the war to end all wars after all so I think probably nothing much was learnt.
But WW1 was by any standards a particularly stupid and pointless war: a real knuckleheaded and futile squabble for resources and territory. At least in the case of WW2 you can just about convince yourself it was about something.

For Australia WW1 was the costliest war evah, with 60000 dead and tens of thousands more permanently injured.

60000 dead in WW1 and no one bats an eye lid ..

40 dead over fourteen years in afghanistan and it’s the most unpopular war since vietnam..

I thought they built the great war of china to keep the rabbits out?…

Dropbear said:

dv said:

(shrugs) Unfortunately it was not the war to end all wars after all so I think probably nothing much was learnt.
But WW1 was by any standards a particularly stupid and pointless war: a real knuckleheaded and futile squabble for resources and territory. At least in the case of WW2 you can just about convince yourself it was about something.

For Australia WW1 was the costliest war evah, with 60000 dead and tens of thousands more permanently injured.

60000 dead in WW1 and no one bats an eye lid ..

40 dead over fourteen years in afghanistan and it’s the most unpopular war since vietnam..

Its in our faces a lot perhaps, someone dies and its reported immediately.

Dropbear said:

60000 dead in WW1 and no one bats an eye lid ..

Many an eyelid was batted at the senseless waste of sending thousands of men over the trench tops to walk slowly towards the enemy barb-wired and machine guns.

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

dv said:

(shrugs) Unfortunately it was not the war to end all wars after all so I think probably nothing much was learnt.
But WW1 was by any standards a particularly stupid and pointless war: a real knuckleheaded and futile squabble for resources and territory. At least in the case of WW2 you can just about convince yourself it was about something.

For Australia WW1 was the costliest war evah, with 60000 dead and tens of thousands more permanently injured.

60000 dead in WW1 and no one bats an eye lid ..

40 dead over fourteen years in afghanistan and it’s the most unpopular war since vietnam..

Its in our faces a lot perhaps, someone dies and its reported immediately.

Gone are the time when we were ‘happy’ to sacrifice an entire generation for king and empire…

I think the west’s main problem at the moment is that we’re conditioned now to not accepting any casualities.. If a war with Russia or China came along, that still don’t give a fuck about individual people, then we’re screwed

party_pants said:

Dropbear said:

60000 dead in WW1 and no one bats an eye lid ..

Many an eyelid was batted at the senseless waste of sending thousands of men over the trench tops to walk slowly towards the enemy barb-wired and machine guns.

yes i mean of course in terms of public sentiment ….. demanding our boys be bought home etc etc

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

60000 dead in WW1 and no one bats an eye lid ..

40 dead over fourteen years in afghanistan and it’s the most unpopular war since vietnam..

Its in our faces a lot perhaps, someone dies and its reported immediately.

Gone are the time when we were ‘happy’ to sacrifice an entire generation for king and empire…

I think the west’s main problem at the moment is that we’re conditioned now to not accepting any casualities.. If a war with Russia or China came along, that still don’t give a fuck about individual people, then we’re screwed

Yes we think our high tech weapons means we are invulnerable, tv and movies usually show us kicking arse and chewing bubblegum when its not really like this. I wonder if the cost is also a big factor some one takes out a multi-million dollar tank with some improvised device that probably used a shell they stole.

Dropbear said:

party_pants said:

Dropbear said:

60000 dead in WW1 and no one bats an eye lid ..

Many an eyelid was batted at the senseless waste of sending thousands of men over the trench tops to walk slowly towards the enemy barb-wired and machine guns.

yes i mean of course in terms of public sentiment ….. demanding our boys be bought home etc etc

It was one of the Iraq conflicts I think were people were angry we sent soldiers to fight, what did they think they armed forces are for.

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

60000 dead in WW1 and no one bats an eye lid ..

40 dead over fourteen years in afghanistan and it’s the most unpopular war since vietnam..

Its in our faces a lot perhaps, someone dies and its reported immediately.

Gone are the time when we were ‘happy’ to sacrifice an entire generation for king and empire…

I think the west’s main problem at the moment is that we’re conditioned now to not accepting any casualities.. If a war with Russia or China came along, that still don’t give a fuck about individual people, then we’re screwed

I think a major offensive with Russia or China would be a very new thing for military conflict. Given the nature of modern weapons it would almost rule direct troop-to-troop interactions ineffective.

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

Its in our faces a lot perhaps, someone dies and its reported immediately.

Gone are the time when we were ‘happy’ to sacrifice an entire generation for king and empire…

I think the west’s main problem at the moment is that we’re conditioned now to not accepting any casualities.. If a war with Russia or China came along, that still don’t give a fuck about individual people, then we’re screwed

I think a major offensive with Russia or China would be a very new thing for military conflict. Given the nature of modern weapons it would almost rule direct troop-to-troop interactions ineffective.

and further to that, I think the winner would be the one to inflict the most damage to their enemy’s infrastructure and associated war machine.

diddly-squat said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Gone are the time when we were ‘happy’ to sacrifice an entire generation for king and empire…

I think the west’s main problem at the moment is that we’re conditioned now to not accepting any casualities.. If a war with Russia or China came along, that still don’t give a fuck about individual people, then we’re screwed

I think a major offensive with Russia or China would be a very new thing for military conflict. Given the nature of modern weapons it would almost rule direct troop-to-troop interactions ineffective.

and further to that, I think the winner would be the one to inflict the most damage to their enemy’s infrastructure and associated war machine.

The “winner” would probably be a complete basket case

diddly-squat said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Gone are the time when we were ‘happy’ to sacrifice an entire generation for king and empire…

I think the west’s main problem at the moment is that we’re conditioned now to not accepting any casualities.. If a war with Russia or China came along, that still don’t give a fuck about individual people, then we’re screwed

I think a major offensive with Russia or China would be a very new thing for military conflict. Given the nature of modern weapons it would almost rule direct troop-to-troop interactions ineffective.

and further to that, I think the winner would be the one to inflict the most damage to their enemy’s infrastructure and associated war machine.

I don’t know about that.

The American army didn’t lose the war in Vietnam, the american public did.

But seriously if the shit really hit the fan a war between the USA and anyone other than Russia should only end one way. There are only two nuclear superpowers in the fair dinkum department.

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

diddly-squat said:

I think a major offensive with Russia or China would be a very new thing for military conflict. Given the nature of modern weapons it would almost rule direct troop-to-troop interactions ineffective.

and further to that, I think the winner would be the one to inflict the most damage to their enemy’s infrastructure and associated war machine.

I don’t know about that.

The American army didn’t lose the war in Vietnam, the american public did.

I was talking specifically about a modern war with Russia or China.

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

and further to that, I think the winner would be the one to inflict the most damage to their enemy’s infrastructure and associated war machine.

I don’t know about that.

The American army didn’t lose the war in Vietnam, the american public did.

I was talking specifically about a modern war with Russia or China.

Ok. I was talking about the societies ability to stomach causalities, before you rudely tried to change the subject on me :)

Arguably, there is a moral dimension to the recent Afghanistan conflict that was absent from WW1.

dv said:

Arguably, there is a moral dimension to the recent Afghanistan conflict that was absent from WW1.

WW1 had none of the moral issues of WW2 IMO.. it was basically an issue with alliances and a minor skirmish being escalated into a european war due to those.

Stopping Hitler was a lot more of a black and white, sith vs jedi issue.

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Arguably, there is a moral dimension to the recent Afghanistan conflict that was absent from WW1.

WW1 had none of the moral issues of WW2 IMO.. it was basically an issue with alliances and a minor skirmish being escalated into a european war due to those.

Stopping Hitler was a lot more of a black and white, sith vs jedi issue.

so that makes us The Empire

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Arguably, there is a moral dimension to the recent Afghanistan conflict that was absent from WW1.

WW1 had none of the moral issues of WW2 IMO.. it was basically an issue with alliances and a minor skirmish being escalated into a european war due to those.

Stopping Hitler was a lot more of a black and white, sith vs jedi issue.

The yanks are somewhat responsible for creating the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan that caused all the problems in the first place

Most peace activists usually have a hidden agenda, or their controllers do.
Before the second world war there were a lot of peace activists marching in England, their subtle controllers were the fascists.
During the cold war there were a lot of peace activists, their controllers were the communists.

It’s similar with refugee activists here in Australia, their controllers only send them out for Days of Action and to chant slogans and blow whistles etc against Conservative governments, their Labor movement controllers keep them under wraps at other times.
Controllers aren’t interested in peace or the plight of refugees they are only interested in how they can be used politically.

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Arguably, there is a moral dimension to the recent Afghanistan conflict that was absent from WW1.

WW1 had none of the moral issues of WW2 IMO.. it was basically an issue with alliances and a minor skirmish being escalated into a european war due to those.

Stopping Hitler was a lot more of a black and white, sith vs jedi issue.

In WW1 the Germans tried to storm France to take over Paris, but failed. In WW2 the Germans tried to storm France to take over Paris and succeeded. Their morality did not become public until very much later and for most not until the end of the war.

PermeateFree said:

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Arguably, there is a moral dimension to the recent Afghanistan conflict that was absent from WW1.

WW1 had none of the moral issues of WW2 IMO.. it was basically an issue with alliances and a minor skirmish being escalated into a european war due to those.

Stopping Hitler was a lot more of a black and white, sith vs jedi issue.

In WW1 the Germans tried to storm France to take over Paris, but failed. In WW2 the Germans tried to storm France to take over Paris and succeeded. Their morality did not become public until very much later and for most not until the end of the war.

Even without the holocaust, it was clear enough that democracy and freedoms were being nullified under the Nazis and that this could be expected to be expanded if they won. The holocaust brought this into sharper relief but the broader political contrast was obvious even before the war.

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Arguably, there is a moral dimension to the recent Afghanistan conflict that was absent from WW1.

WW1 had none of the moral issues of WW2 IMO.. it was basically an issue with alliances and a minor skirmish being escalated into a european war due to those.

Stopping Hitler was a lot more of a black and white, sith vs jedi issue.

The yanks are somewhat responsible for creating the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan that caused all the problems in the first place

Steven Colls Ghost Wars starts at the beginning of the soviet invasion. I suppose when the soviets went in to back thier puppet government and started blowing up the countryside and with the world largly indifferent and both Afghanistan and Pakistan who feared a communist government as its next door neighbour, too broke to provide any sort of aid, America could have just watched, after it was not really thier sphere of influence, but then they were also getting a lot of heat from Saudi Arabia on account of the Sovs killing devout Muslims as it was the religious organisations, in particular the Pashtuns that were leading the resistance. Nothing is simple.

I forgot, the Pakistanis were also blackmailing the Americans into providing assistance by threatening to remove the spy facilities and U2 airfields.

The phases have changed but there’s been war in Afghanistan solidly since the mid-1970s, since the fall of the monarchy, really.

There is a growing sense of acceptance that the only sensible course left to the west is to complete back away from the BACs in the middle east and them sort their own shit out .. There is also a growing sense of acceptance that the end result of that will be complete suckage to the women and children left inside that ‘caliphate’

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

WW1 had none of the moral issues of WW2 IMO.. it was basically an issue with alliances and a minor skirmish being escalated into a european war due to those.

Stopping Hitler was a lot more of a black and white, sith vs jedi issue.

The yanks are somewhat responsible for creating the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan that caused all the problems in the first place

Steven Colls Ghost Wars starts at the beginning of the soviet invasion. I suppose when the soviets went in to back thier puppet government and started blowing up the countryside and with the world largly indifferent and both Afghanistan and Pakistan who feared a communist government as its next door neighbour, too broke to provide any sort of aid, America could have just watched, after it was not really thier sphere of influence, but then they were also getting a lot of heat from Saudi Arabia on account of the Sovs killing devout Muslims as it was the religious organisations, in particular the Pashtuns that were leading the resistance. Nothing is simple.

No its not

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Dropbear said:

WW1 had none of the moral issues of WW2 IMO.. it was basically an issue with alliances and a minor skirmish being escalated into a european war due to those.

Stopping Hitler was a lot more of a black and white, sith vs jedi issue.

In WW1 the Germans tried to storm France to take over Paris, but failed. In WW2 the Germans tried to storm France to take over Paris and succeeded. Their morality did not become public until very much later and for most not until the end of the war.

Even without the holocaust, it was clear enough that democracy and freedoms were being nullified under the Nazis and that this could be expected to be expanded if they won. The holocaust brought this into sharper relief but the broader political contrast was obvious even before the war.

The Nazi’s or Fascism was highly regarded before the war, particularly amongst the well to do. So if they did know about Hitler’s lack of concern for human rights before the war, then they certainly did not care.

dv said:

The phases have changed but there’s been war in Afghanistan solidly since the mid-1970s, since the fall of the monarchy, really.

The British have been fiddling in Afghanistan for centuries.
It scarred Younghusband for life.

Dropbear said:

There is a growing sense of acceptance that the only sensible course left to the west is to complete back away from the BACs in the middle east and them sort their own shit out .. There is also a growing sense of acceptance that the end result of that will be complete suckage to the women and children left inside that ‘caliphate’

Sad but true isn’t it

Dropbear said:

There is a growing sense of acceptance that the only sensible course left to the west is to complete back away from the BACs in the middle east and them sort their own shit out .. There is also a growing sense of acceptance that the end result of that will be complete suckage to the women and children left inside that ‘caliphate’

Yeah. That is going to happen, the US is war weary and broke and the message fuck you and the mule you rode in on is getting stronger.

AwesomeO said:

Dropbear said:

There is a growing sense of acceptance that the only sensible course left to the west is to complete back away from the BACs in the middle east and them sort their own shit out .. There is also a growing sense of acceptance that the end result of that will be complete suckage to the women and children left inside that ‘caliphate’

Yeah. That is going to happen, the US is war weary and broke and the message fuck you and the mule you rode in on is getting stronger.

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Dropbear said:

There is a growing sense of acceptance that the only sensible course left to the west is to complete back away from the BACs in the middle east and them sort their own shit out .. There is also a growing sense of acceptance that the end result of that will be complete suckage to the women and children left inside that ‘caliphate’

Yeah. That is going to happen, the US is war weary and broke and the message fuck you and the mule you rode in on is getting stronger.

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

Besides trade and oil does the USA have any commonground with the Middle East, two very different cultures that may never get along.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Dropbear said:

There is a growing sense of acceptance that the only sensible course left to the west is to complete back away from the BACs in the middle east and them sort their own shit out .. There is also a growing sense of acceptance that the end result of that will be complete suckage to the women and children left inside that ‘caliphate’

Yeah. That is going to happen, the US is war weary and broke and the message fuck you and the mule you rode in on is getting stronger.

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

The US never left, as the Arabs had most of the oil.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

The phases have changed but there’s been war in Afghanistan solidly since the mid-1970s, since the fall of the monarchy, really.

The British have been fiddling in Afghanistan for centuries.
It scarred Younghusband for life.

Actually, he was a pretty decent King as Kings go.

“ In 1964, a new constitution transformed Afghanistan into a modern democracy, with free elections, a parliament, civil rights, emancipation for women and universal suffrage.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1573181.stm

Lousy stinking republicans wrecking everything…

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Dropbear said:

There is a growing sense of acceptance that the only sensible course left to the west is to complete back away from the BACs in the middle east and them sort their own shit out .. There is also a growing sense of acceptance that the end result of that will be complete suckage to the women and children left inside that ‘caliphate’

Yeah. That is going to happen, the US is war weary and broke and the message fuck you and the mule you rode in on is getting stronger.

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

I don’t know how you manage an isolationist police with a pro-israel policy, but I imagine greater minds than mine have that sorted out.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Yeah. That is going to happen, the US is war weary and broke and the message fuck you and the mule you rode in on is getting stronger.

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

The US never left, as the Arabs had most of the oil.

Again, the abandonment of oil from the Middle East was a GW Bush policy. His view was that they needed to focus on what he called “hemispheric resources” with a plan for the Western Hemisphere to be energy-independent within a decade.

Dropbear said:

I don’t know how you manage an isolationist police with a pro-israel policy, but I imagine greater minds than mine have that sorted out.

policy, not police.

Dropbear said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Yeah. That is going to happen, the US is war weary and broke and the message fuck you and the mule you rode in on is getting stronger.

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

I don’t know how you manage an isolationist police with a pro-israel policy, but I imagine greater minds than mine have that sorted out.

I think every US policy has a little *Except Israel at the bottom.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

The US never left, as the Arabs had most of the oil.

Again, the abandonment of oil from the Middle East was a GW Bush policy. His view was that they needed to focus on what he called “hemispheric resources” with a plan for the Western Hemisphere to be energy-independent within a decade.

The Arab’s still had most of the oil!

Of course thanks to fracking the US is looking at having zero oil imports by 2018 now anyway so they might well wish that shit had been invented in the 1970s…

dv said:

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

I don’t know how you manage an isolationist police with a pro-israel policy, but I imagine greater minds than mine have that sorted out.

I think every US policy has a little *Except Israel at the bottom.

The god might be angry if we don’t help them clause

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

The US never left, as the Arabs had most of the oil.

Again, the abandonment of oil from the Middle East was a GW Bush policy. His view was that they needed to focus on what he called “hemispheric resources” with a plan for the Western Hemisphere to be energy-independent within a decade.

The Arab’s still had most of the oil!

Actually “the Arabs” plus Iran only make up about 30% of oil production now. They ain’t what they were.

Probably wont be long before we have a Peak Fracking Man.

Dropbear said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Yeah. That is going to happen, the US is war weary and broke and the message fuck you and the mule you rode in on is getting stronger.

Oddly enough that isolationist trend was the stated and acted GW Bush policy before and after the 2000 election. He wanted to wind down the bases in the middle east and east Asia. The US was dragged back into it by 11/09.

I don’t know how you manage an isolationist police with a pro-israel policy, but I imagine greater minds than mine have that sorted out.

When Sadat met Golda he said something like, you are very well known in our country, people say you are the strongest man in Israel. Diplomats blanched but she was delighted.

dv said:

Of course thanks to fracking the US is looking at having zero oil imports by 2018 now anyway so they might well wish that shit had been invented in the 1970s…

But at the time, America was not going to place it’s entire economy in the hands of a few Revolutionaries.

I am sure when the aliens invade we will all band together to fight them off

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Of course thanks to fracking the US is looking at having zero oil imports by 2018 now anyway so they might well wish that shit had been invented in the 1970s…

But at the time, America was not going to place it’s entire economy in the hands of a few Revolutionaries.

Was it KK that said for the amount of money spent on the two Iraq conflicts and Afghanistan the USA could have converted most of their vehicles to non petrol usage.

Cymek said:

I am sure when the aliens invade we will all band together to fight them off

Nahhhh, I for one will welcome our alien overlords.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Again, the abandonment of oil from the Middle East was a GW Bush policy. His view was that they needed to focus on what he called “hemispheric resources” with a plan for the Western Hemisphere to be energy-independent within a decade.

The Arab’s still had most of the oil!

Actually “the Arabs” plus Iran only make up about 30% of oil production now. They ain’t what they were.

All the problems started when the Arabs control of most of the oil and then obtaining new supplies were not looking good. It does not matter what the Arab situation is today, because things have changed.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

I am sure when the aliens invade we will all band together to fight them off

Nahhhh, I for one will welcome our alien overlords.

Yes I’d seriously think about joining them

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Of course thanks to fracking the US is looking at having zero oil imports by 2018 now anyway so they might well wish that shit had been invented in the 1970s…

But at the time, America was not going to place it’s entire economy in the hands of a few Revolutionaries.

Was it KK that said for the amount of money spent on the two Iraq conflicts and Afghanistan the USA could have converted most of their vehicles to non petrol usage.

Krispy Kreme? King Kong?

• Yes I’d seriously think about joining them

We’ll make great pets…

furious said:

• Yes I’d seriously think about joining them

We’ll make great pets…

They’ll have a book How to Serve Man.

furious said:

• Yes I’d seriously think about joining them

We’ll make great pets…

………or livestock.

Cymek said:

I am sure when the aliens invade we will all band together to fight them off

Everyone but Switzerland that is.

dv said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

But at the time, America was not going to place it’s entire economy in the hands of a few Revolutionaries.

Was it KK that said for the amount of money spent on the two Iraq conflicts and Afghanistan the USA could have converted most of their vehicles to non petrol usage.

Krispy Kreme? King Kong?

Karl Kruszelnicki, I vaguely remember him mentioning it on his JJJ science show

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

I am sure when the aliens invade we will all band together to fight them off

Everyone but Switzerland that is.

BC will be in charge of the welcoming committee.

furious said:

• Yes I’d seriously think about joining them

We’ll make great pets…

Perry Farrell thinks so

Cymek said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

Was it KK that said for the amount of money spent on the two Iraq conflicts and Afghanistan the USA could have converted most of their vehicles to non petrol usage.

Krispy Kreme? King Kong?

Karl Kruszelnicki, I vaguely remember him mentioning it on his JJJ science show

On the other hand, converting their vehicles to non petrol usage would not have stopped Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al Qaeda, and I don’t think any reasonable commentator could think that the Afghanistan war was even partly about petroleum. It’s not an oil rich country. So even having spend the money to convert the cars, they’d still have to go to war in Afghanistan.

Converting most of their vehicles to non-petrol would be a great way for the US to antagonize other countries that depend on oil production for their economy. After all, that’s in large part what these current conflicts are about – oil rich nations that can’t see a future for themselves in an environmentally friendly world economy and are panicking as a result. IMO.

No doubt it is a rich tapestry.

Women first gained the vote in Afghanistan in 1965, though only a handful of women were elected to parliament (2 senators, 4 lower house members).
Two women were serving as ministers during this liberal period before the fall of the monarchy: Koobra Noorzayi as Health Minister and Shafiqa Ziaye as Advisor to the Prime Minister.

Odd that there were more women in cabinet in Afghanistan 45 years ago than there are in Australia today.

dv said:

No doubt it is a rich tapestry.

Women first gained the vote in Afghanistan in 1965, though only a handful of women were elected to parliament (2 senators, 4 lower house members).
Two women were serving as ministers during this liberal period before the fall of the monarchy: Koobra Noorzayi as Health Minister and Shafiqa Ziaye as Advisor to the Prime Minister.

Odd that there were more women in cabinet in Afghanistan 45 years ago than there are in Australia today.

Well we’re lucky here, appointments are made on merit and not by outdated and old fashioned methods of gender, sexual preference or religion.
There are still some who judge a government by how many gays or women or muslims they have but these people are fading out as we evolve to a more progressive sunlit upland.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

No doubt it is a rich tapestry.

Women first gained the vote in Afghanistan in 1965, though only a handful of women were elected to parliament (2 senators, 4 lower house members).
Two women were serving as ministers during this liberal period before the fall of the monarchy: Koobra Noorzayi as Health Minister and Shafiqa Ziaye as Advisor to the Prime Minister.

Odd that there were more women in cabinet in Afghanistan 45 years ago than there are in Australia today.

Well we’re lucky here, appointments are made on merit and not by outdated and old fashioned methods of gender, sexual preference or religion.
There are still some who judge a government by how many gays or women or muslims they have but these people are fading out as we evolve to a more progressive sunlit upland.

I’m enlightened enough to judge this government by the number of facepalmingly stupid things they do and say in the average week.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

No doubt it is a rich tapestry.

Women first gained the vote in Afghanistan in 1965, though only a handful of women were elected to parliament (2 senators, 4 lower house members).
Two women were serving as ministers during this liberal period before the fall of the monarchy: Koobra Noorzayi as Health Minister and Shafiqa Ziaye as Advisor to the Prime Minister.

Odd that there were more women in cabinet in Afghanistan 45 years ago than there are in Australia today.

Well we’re lucky here, appointments are made on merit and not by outdated and old fashioned methods of gender, sexual preference or religion.
There are still some who judge a government by how many gays or women or muslims they have but these people are fading out as we evolve to a more progressive sunlit upland.

I’m enlightened enough to judge this government by the number of facepalmingly stupid things they do and say in the average week.

regret seems to the order of the week…

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

No doubt it is a rich tapestry.

Women first gained the vote in Afghanistan in 1965, though only a handful of women were elected to parliament (2 senators, 4 lower house members).
Two women were serving as ministers during this liberal period before the fall of the monarchy: Koobra Noorzayi as Health Minister and Shafiqa Ziaye as Advisor to the Prime Minister.

Odd that there were more women in cabinet in Afghanistan 45 years ago than there are in Australia today.

Well we’re lucky here, appointments are made on merit and not by outdated and old fashioned methods of gender, sexual preference or religion.
There are still some who judge a government by how many gays or women or muslims they have but these people are fading out as we evolve to a more progressive sunlit upland.

I’m enlightened enough to judge this government by the number of facepalmingly stupid things they do and say in the average week.

There are more women voters than men so stop whinging & get elected.

Tamb said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Well we’re lucky here, appointments are made on merit and not by outdated and old fashioned methods of gender, sexual preference or religion.
There are still some who judge a government by how many gays or women or muslims they have but these people are fading out as we evolve to a more progressive sunlit upland.

I’m enlightened enough to judge this government by the number of facepalmingly stupid things they do and say in the average week.

There are more women voters than men so stop whinging & get elected.

Perhaps we don’t have many women in parliament as they aren’t tard enough for the job

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

I’m enlightened enough to judge this government by the number of facepalmingly stupid things they do and say in the average week.

There are more women voters than men so stop whinging & get elected.

Perhaps we don’t have many women in parliament as they aren’t tard enough for the job

Too honest perhaps? Able to keep promises?

>Fortunately we now have memes as well as genes, so there is some hope that we can convert the “immediate group” into everyone on the planet.

It’s going to take a long time but I don’t suppose there are any other options.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

There are more women voters than men so stop whinging & get elected.

Perhaps we don’t have many women in parliament as they aren’t tard enough for the job

Too honest perhaps? Able to keep promises?

Possibly, I wonder if for the most part politics attracts drongos as the innovators are in private industry

Bubblecar said:

>Fortunately we now have memes as well as genes, so there is some hope that we can convert the “immediate group” into everyone on the planet.

It’s going to take a long time but I don’t suppose there are any other options.

I think this century will be the tipping point for humanity, we either become enlightened and spread out across the solar system where the needs of the many and the future outweighs the needs of the few and the present or we wreck the planet and struggle to survive in a much reduced technological capacity

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps we don’t have many women in parliament as they aren’t tard enough for the job

Too honest perhaps? Able to keep promises?

Possibly, I wonder if for the most part politics attracts drongos as the innovators are in private industry

Power is euphoric & possibly men crave that euphoria more than women.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Too honest perhaps? Able to keep promises?

Possibly, I wonder if for the most part politics attracts drongos as the innovators are in private industry

Power is euphoric & possibly men crave that euphoria more than women.

First you get da money, then you get da power, den you get de wimmin.

Had they converted all those cars to non-petroleum power, what would they likely be powered by?

Coal (via the electricity generation pathway)?

• Had they converted all those cars to non-petroleum power, what would they likely be powered by?

Nuclear Fusion…

furious said:

• Had they converted all those cars to non-petroleum power, what would they likely be powered by?

Nuclear Fusion…

Its taking almost as long as the second coming of Jebus

Cymek said:

furious said:

• Had they converted all those cars to non-petroleum power, what would they likely be powered by?

Nuclear Fusion…

Its taking almost as long as the second coming of Jebus

Yea, the crazy Adventist book I was made to complete once a week at primary school said Jeezus was meant to be here 14 years ago.

dv said:

(shrugs) Unfortunately it was not the war to end all wars after all so I think probably nothing much was learnt.
…
We’re aproaching the end of the centenary of the start of the “The Great War”. What significance can we glean from this perspective?

Was an interesting TV program a few nights ago called “Masters of Money” about John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was part of the negotiating team that set the German reparations at the end of the First World War. He resigned in the middle of the negotiations because he could see that the stupidity of the economic sanctions against Germany would soon lead to the start of a new world war. He wrote a book about it. And he was right.

The result is called Keynesian economics. It has got the world through a lot since then, and when it has been ignored – in particular just before the GFC – disaster has followed. The next disaster it predicts will be due to the stupidity of the recent European sanctions against Greece.

So one thing we’re learnt from “The Great War” is “Trust Keynes”.

Keynesian economics has taken a bit of a battering since the GFC, because the fiscal policies of the government sector has not had the expected results, or the results have taken a LOT longer to show than they should …

America has been printing money like a bitch, and has been running at basically zero interest rate levels for years now. Only in the last year has the economy even looked like turning around.

Dropbear said:

Keynesian economics has taken a bit of a battering since the GFC, because the fiscal policies of the government sector has not had the expected results, or the results have taken a LOT longer to show than they should …

America has been printing money like a bitch, and has been running at basically zero interest rate levels for years now. Only in the last year has the economy even looked like turning around.

And yet the $A is only at about $US 0.85
Right thread this time

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

Keynesian economics has taken a bit of a battering since the GFC, because the fiscal policies of the government sector has not had the expected results, or the results have taken a LOT longer to show than they should …

America has been printing money like a bitch, and has been running at basically zero interest rate levels for years now. Only in the last year has the economy even looked like turning around.

And yet the $A is only at about $US 0.85
Right thread this time

There are several reasons for that.. One of them is the now resurging US economy, but also the iron ore / coal price is down half from the peaks

Dropbear said:

Keynesian economics has taken a bit of a battering since the GFC, because the fiscal policies of the government sector has not had the expected results, or the results have taken a LOT longer to show than they should …

America has been printing money like a bitch, and has been running at basically zero interest rate levels for years now. Only in the last year has the economy even looked like turning around.

To be fair, no actual money was printed.

poikilotherm said:

Dropbear said:

Keynesian economics has taken a bit of a battering since the GFC, because the fiscal policies of the government sector has not had the expected results, or the results have taken a LOT longer to show than they should …

America has been printing money like a bitch, and has been running at basically zero interest rate levels for years now. Only in the last year has the economy even looked like turning around.

To be fair, no actual money was printed.

sorry.. “ quantitative easing “

Dropbear said:

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

Keynesian economics has taken a bit of a battering since the GFC, because the fiscal policies of the government sector has not had the expected results, or the results have taken a LOT longer to show than they should …

America has been printing money like a bitch, and has been running at basically zero interest rate levels for years now. Only in the last year has the economy even looked like turning around.

And yet the $A is only at about $US 0.85
Right thread this time

There are several reasons for that.. One of them is the now resurging US economy, but also the iron ore / coal price is down half from the peaks

For some reason we are only $A1 = € 0.69. Down from €0.77

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

Tamb said:

And yet the $A is only at about $US 0.85
Right thread this time

There are several reasons for that.. One of them is the now resurging US economy, but also the iron ore / coal price is down half from the peaks

For some reason we are only $A1 = € 0.69. Down from €0.77

and up from 66 euro cents in January