Latest Moan From You and Me 2024

If you don't resolve climate change it matters little, it will certainly sort out any population problems, perhaps this is seen as a solution?

 

Or vice versa, climate change is just symptom of over population, sort out climate change and bring on the next problem, we cant feed the world, then we need more energy, then we need more land for solar power, then we wipe out every other living thing on the planet that we dont "need" or cant "use".

 

No. There is no such comparison, one of them can wipe out humans, but over population just kills a few billion from starvation or killing each other.

 

I'm in favour of wiping out humans, all those in favour raise your right hand.

Humans have become the scourge of the planet that they are pro porting to save, they dont want to save the planet, they just want to save the human race, two very different things IMO.

 

Or to be strictly accurate, we are apologising for having done so in the past. It's true that the West's influence is waning. History shows over and over again civilisations ascending, becoming effete and collapsing, so it's nothing new.

 

What sort of man aged 16 to 28 Flees his country leaving his wife/girlfriend/sisters/children Behind and arrive in the UK on a rubber dinghy as an illegal immigrant
I could maybe understand if they arrived with their family, but flee to save ones self and leave the very vunerable behind is DISGUSTING SCUM

 

Yeah but your probably not human @pete and I'm left handed

 

I don't know about Afghanistan, but the West was pretty friendly with Putin up until the Salisbury incident. Russia got a world cup and winter olympics, at the same time as Putin annexed Crimea and a stray missile shot down a passenger jet flying over Ukraine (and after it was proven he ordered the assassination of Litvinenko). I recall even Nigel Farage praising him at one point. I guess it depends on context, convenience and of course financial incentives.

I don't think we have really figured out how to deal with an enemy that doesn't fight on the same terms as us, as in the value of each individual life seems to matter less and anyone on the other side is fair game, the Japanese army in WWII were the same, the Soviets were the same and Jihadist fighters are a modern-day equivalent.

Its difficult because the West doesn't really operate like that in combat, we try - but often don't succeed - to distinguish between civilian and military targets.

 

Absolutely correct, we mingle with the slime, then complain they are spreading. Putin should have been called out years ago.

 

It cost tax payers money and many lives of ordinary people, but those at the top of the food chain gained, and that is the only part of the equation that matters to them. It also was exceptionally useful in perpetrating the "war on terror" mantra, which allowed all manner of surveillance techniques to be written into law, eg the right to listen in to all phone calls in the US in the name of controlling terrorism.

The "cost" of having a few get very, very wealthy has been extremely high for everyone else.

 

I don't mind my phone calls being listened to or emails monitored to prevent terrorism. I always thought that GCHQ picked up on certain words? I may be wrong, but I thought that they do this!

I don't understand this wealth aspect being referred to.

 

The wealth aspect goes like this. Gov spending is paid for by tax payers. A large amount of the money goes in contracts to the very wealthy because they have great influence over govs. There is very little accountability and billions get written off.

Re surveillance, again this is wrapped up with capital. Google now gets the majority of its income from contracts with the military. Surveillance equals the ability to control and controlled populations are at the mercy of those in power, who in turn are very heavily influenced by background wealth through donations and post-political opportunities.

Money controls politics and the media, and therefore the agenda.

Now, some people are happy with the trade off that surveillance brings, believing the loss of privacy and autonomy is acceptable in return for increased safety. But I would say that perception of increased safety is mostly illusion. The aim of surveillance isn't to keep people safe. It's to keep the power status quo through control.

There are some very interesting books on surveillance capitalism. I can supply recommendations if desired.

 

The ones who’s families have scrimped and scraped and gone into debt to pay for their young men’s fares abroad to avoid them
being forced to join and being maimed or killed in horrendous warfare not of their own choosing. Their plans are that the young men will then find a way of sending for their wives and families once they’ve established a safe place for them to come. Some of them do bring their families with them in the boats … how many dead children do you want to see washed up on the beaches of the Mediterranean?
Dead children washed up on Libya beach, says charity