h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'In the case of Palestine, that environment is strongly dictated by the political exigencies of the oil economy. The combatants themselves don't stand to gain from the conflict, but the resultant instability is politically useful to codependent relationship between oil producers and consumers.'



Of course, everyone knows that God gave his Chosen People the only part of the Middle East without any oil.

But surely the US in particular is trying to keep the Saudi government sweet - not helped at all by their backing for Israel. Without US backing, Israel would almost certainly have fallen long ago.

Gif

>Without US backing, Israel would almost certainly have fallen long ago. <

Without doubt. It's like a gigantic safe permanent miltary presence in the mid east for the US. The thing is I've always had a bit of pragmatism about our oil interests, because our civilisation would completely fall apart without it.

All the people that continually criticise the behaviour of the west in the middle east, should get rid of all the things in their life that depend on oil. No more plastics, no more driving anywhere or using buses. no more food from a shop that's had its supplies delivered by vehicles, orindeed any consumer itm that has got to the shop[ vehicles. No more clothes made from man mad fibres.

Basically people who feel really strongly about the middles east and Israel, will have to grow all their own food, and make their own clothes, live in a mud hut with no heating, and walk everywhere.

Nice life you'll have Vicky. Particularly as there'll be no more watching or listening to F1 grand prixes for you.

You wouldn't be baiting me would you? Lets try, the human process of being able to anticipate versus the kneejerk reaction to a given set of preceived threats or events. What wins out depends on the variables of events.

To point out that there are other energy options available to us not mention other oil supplies elsewhere in the world would not be too simplistic would it?. Please consider who benifits most by the continued threat to our oil addiction.

No I wasn't baiting you. I was poking a bit of fun at Vicky; that's who I mentioned, I find your attempt at debate very confusing and nonsensical.You don't develop your points at all. I won't be wasting my time baiting you.

>>Without doubt. It's like a gigantic safe permanent miltary presence in the mid east for the US.

nnn...it's a bit more complex than that. The modern origins of the conflict have a lot to do with divide-and-rule in the face of Arab nationalist threats. Think of what Britain did in Iraq and tried to do in Egypt. Think of what the US and Britain did in (not Arabic) Iran. The existence of a strong Israel has been a useful distraction in our conflict.

Oh I know I was being a bit simplistic. There are of course other reasons. But I think the one I mentioned is pretty fundamental. Did you know that we still British military bases in Cyprus that are technically British territory. Their strategic importance to the middle east is obvious. The Cypriots have been moaning about it for years, but the Americans won't let the Cypriots take them back.

I went to Cyprus a few years ago and found out all about it. Mind you one of the best things is that those areas all around the crown bases, aren't developed. You can visit amazing coastal landscape on days when they aren't testing guns and stuff. There are signs everywhere telling you not to touch or pick up anything suspicious, ie unexploaded shells

I think the plural of 'grand prix' may be 'grands prix'

I'm almost positive it isn't 'grand prixes'

<>

And there you see, it's perfectly possible.

<>

That doesn't follow at all Effers (even though I walk everywhere anyway... What can I say, I am a Greenie! )

A greenie?

What's your stance on gloabal climate change then Della?

You walk everywhere? Is this since you told us about your encounter on the bus with a *** passenger?



Since you're back can you please tell me if your mother was correct about people like Stepen Fry who swear or otherwise use foul language being "uneducated, unimaginative and lacking intellect"?


If you ignore these reasonable questions or fail to post on topic answers I'll take it that you actually have no supporting evidence on any of these topics and that you are just spouting bile.

one love

*<>

And there you see, it's perfectly possible.*

Yes, WE know that Vicky, the point is that you didn't.



*What can I say, I am a Greenie!*

Does that mean you agree with the Green Line?

>>Yes, WE know that Vicky, the point is that you didn't.

<>

As my father so often used to say "Give me patience!"

My point was that anti-Zionism is *not* anti Semitic, and in support of that, *I* not you, pointed out that not all Jews are Zionist. So, I knew that, you refused to know it.

So, should I do a Blicky and call you a liar? Or accept that you are a rather confused old gent?

Remind us of the original remark, Vicky? Something about elephants in rooms?

NO what you should do is withdraw you claim regarding the lack of education, inteeligence and wit of those who chose to swear.

That would be nice as my dearly departed Gran used to swear a lot and I find your assertions deeply insulting to her memory.

I rather fear that this swearing is a bit of a rabbit hole, Blicky.

But I can't resist pointing out to Vicky that what counts as swearing changes over time. The Shakesperean quotes earlier would have been *very* rude in his day. They would have been swearing - in the same way that 'Tabernacle' counts as swearing in Quebec. (Seriously!)

I don't know what counted as swearing to Chaucer, but he certainly used 'arse' and 'c**t' in Canterbury Tales. Neither would have been considered overly offensive.

But I'm more interested in having the Elephant thing explained to me again. What was the Elephant?

Claiming anyone who curses lacks education, intelligence and wit also unfairly vilifies those who suffer from Tourette's Syndrome.

I think you owe them an apology!