| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Wiley wrote: | | The war on opium has almost been won in the west, folks are opting for synthetic lab produced drugs. |
As a reasonably big-time drug-user all my life, I think I can comment on 'folk-opts'. It is true that lab-produced drugs are usually cheaper, safer and all-round better than their natural equivalents. Yet, for some reason, the 'real thing' stubbornly persists in the hearts (and brains) of their end-users.
| We can now safely let the Taliban, and the Columbians cartels get on with their evil trade. No more setting fire to poppy fields or targetting Venezuelan boats needed, we instead need to carpet bomb laboratories. |
In the days when 'narcotics' was seen as a health problem rather than a crime problem (or no problem), there was little difficulty coming up with synthetic versions--either with the same effect or, like methadone, not with the same good effects but preventing the bad ones. This is no longer the case. Modern synthetic drugs tend to be Big Pharma products that are discovered to have other unintended uses.
| These labs are often situated in the massive producer nations like China and India. That surely wont stop us. |
You are quite right. Only by legalising the whole thing--and accepting the baleful side effects of that--will we stop the crazy situation we find ourselves in:
* some countries being turned into ungovernable narco-states
* some countries getting rich as illegal drug-manufacturing states
* all countries being turned into drug-problem states.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| ...the small Jewish community... CNN |
They were reporting the reaction of British Jews to the spate of anti-Semitic acts. I've never thought of them as a small community. So I looked it up. And they are! In the sense of being 0.5% here and 2.5% in the USA. That surprised me, I had assumed they would be broadly similar.
But the burden of the report was more telling. It was surmised by CNN on good authority that the synagogue firings et al were the responsibility of an 'active Iranian cell' who were part of a wider IRGC campaign to unsettle Jews throughout western Europe. If this is the case, we can be acquitted of anti-Semitism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
There is however a sizeable Muslim community in the UK or about 4 million (Jewish community numbers 200,000 -300,000 ).
The muslim community used to vote about 80% Labour. In the local elections this vote almost disapeared altogether, some folks say it was single digit percentage. Muslims are now voting Green or Muslim Independent.
Labour has lost 1-2 million votes or so, maybe more, by its own internal in fighting over Anti-Semitism /Gaza.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This is one of the more extraordinary twisted-nicker situations the Labour Party has managed to get itself into in recent times. There has never been the slightest suggestion of anti-Semitism in the party, even in those pre-War days when anti-Semitism was more the rule than the exception in British society generally.
British Jews, for their part, were pretty solidly Labour-supporting in those days. Less so now. They would, I would have thought, mirror the population in general. Right up until Margaret Thatcher's celebrated remarks about 'furriers in my (Finchley) constituency' when opposing animal cruelty legislation being promoted by Alan Clark.
But then, as you say, came Gaza.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The FBI have arrested an Iranian in New York. He was the advanced party of a IRGC unit intent on introducing to America what they had been doing in Europe: arson attacks on synagogues, Jewish ambulances in London etc. He's copped to the lot. The modus operandi is to hire local crims to do the heavy lifting.
I have written to the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, asking him to apologise to the British people for accusing them of 'widespread anti-Semitism' in the wake of these attacks. I bet he doesn't. Jews, they're all the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
It occurs to me that if any of these 'local crims' are brought to justice, they won't be facing an extra tariff for perpetrating a 'hate crime'. They were just doing it for the money. I bet they will get a coupla years on top though. Judges, they're all the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I'm really looking forward to the trial of ninety-five year old Raul Castro. He's to be charged with murdering Americans.
Would that be Americans constantly violating Cuban airspace to (officially) drop leaflets on Havana and (unofficially) do whatever other mischief they could get up to in their quest to overthrow the Cuban government?
Guilty as charged. Whoever heard of a country shooting down planes doing that? What a shame America can't send the villain for one these new-fangled War Crimes trials in the Hague. (They haven't signed up.) It'll have to be the tried-and-tested Federal District Court of Lower Manhattan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Chutzpah doesn't usually figure majorly in international relations. It is considered a very serious business. President Trump, as might have been predicted, is an exception to this rule.
1. He and Benjamin Netanyahu launched an unprovoked, sudden and devastating aerial assault on Iran
2. Iran could not retaliate against America save by firing missiles at US bases in the Gulf and at Gulf countries with US bases
3. Iran and America are currently negotiating an end to the war, something fervently desired by Iran, America, the Gulf states and the whole world (apart from Israel)
4. President Trump has just announced these negotiations will require one condition if they are to come to fruition...
5. That the Gulf states recognise Israel via the Abrams Accords.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Chutzpah doesn't usually figure majorly in international relations. It is considered a very serious business. President Trump, as might have been predicted, is an exception to this rule. |
Chutzpah doesn't usually figure majorly in international relations.
| Mick Harper wrote: |
He and Benjamin Netanyahu launched an unprovoked, sudden and devastating aerial assault on Iran |
I am not really buying that none of the Arabs states were on board, some had probably made it clear that they were supportive, but officially they would be neutral.
| Mick Harper wrote: |
2. Iran could not retaliate against America save by firing missiles at US bases in the Gulf and at Gulf countries with US bases |
Clearly Iran like Wiley suspected that things were not at all, as they seemed. Some folks were saying one thing in public........
3. Iran and America are currently negotiating an end to the war, something fervently desired by Iran, America, the Gulf states and the whole world (apart from Israel)
|
The US wants to withdraw
The Arabs are split, some actually want the US to finish Iran. (you can understand why, they want regime change....)
Saudi Arabia and the UAE spring to mind.
4. President Trump has just announced these negotiations will require one condition if they are to come to fruition...
5. That the Gulf states recognise Israel via the Abrams Accords. |
Make your mind up time, you openly all support us, finance us, to finish the job, or we are off, you lot then all jointly clear this up, without us....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | I am not really buying that none of the Arabs states were on board, some had probably made it clear that they were supportive, but officially they would be neutral. |
How can you possibly say this? America didn't know it was on board until Benjie phoned Donald. If you think either country's intelligence services would have okayed blabbing it to Iran via a Gulf state, you're in line to succeed Tulsi Gabbard.
| Clearly Iran like Wiley suspected that things were not at all, as they seemed. Some folks were saying one thing in public........ |
We here at the AEL would have liked Wiley to tell us of his suspicions. We didn't have a clue!
| The US wants to withdraw The Arabs are split, some actually want the US to finish Iran. (you can understand why, they want regime change....) Saudi Arabia and the UAE spring to mind. |
Really? I thought they were starting to get on rather well before the balloon went up. But, hey, I don't have your sources.
| Make your mind up time, you openly all support us, finance us, to finish the job, or we are off, you lot then all jointly clear this up, without us.... |
Is that the picture? Well, good luck to one and all then. Me, I think the Gulf states (and America) want to go back to the cosy world they had before the war. But maybe that means 'after Trump'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
All true, at the time, I had no inkling wny Iran was bombing its neighours infrastructure as well as US bases.
So I looked around.
This is the background cold war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_war
The question is were the Saudi's informed, the US has quite alot riding on this relationship, during President Donald J. Trump's last visit to Riyadh, he announced $600 billion in Saudi investments in technology and defense. OK, thats Trump, plumping Trump.
Still long term, Saudi Arabia, is the largest buyer of U.S. foreign military sales, it allocates 8.1% of its gross domestic product to defense, more than any other Middle Eastern nation.
You telling me that the Saudis didnt know......
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/27/saudi-arabia-us-iran-attacks-mohammed-bin-salman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You are assuming the people who run these states are capable of this kind of long term strategic calculation. I'd put it more at this level:
Netanyahu: We're going in.
Trump: They're going in. Should we?
Vance: No. Who needs the entanglement?
Rubio: Yes. We'll get blamed anyway so we might as well.
Chairman, Chiefs of Staff: We'll need to tell Saudi.
Tulsi Gabbard: Nobody else.
Saudi Crown Prince: If you must, you must. We'll act surprised.
etc etc
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Is that the picture? Well, good luck to one and all then. Me, I think the Gulf states (and America) want to go back to the cosy world they had before the war. But maybe that means 'after Trump'.
|
The bit we disagree on. I think this will turn out to be a sort of 1968. It will be a critical moment, when the power that acts as overlord for the Gulf, pulls out militarily.
In 1968 it was the Brits leaving. Britain never officially had colonies in the Gulf, but it had been the pre-eminent foreign power there since the 18th Century. The Labour government decided as the pound crashed, it was time to terminate its commitments in the Middle East.
It was the best thing we could do in the situation. We decided to "put Britain first". We of course tried to persuade LBJ to take over, he refused. Undaunted we fudged the best arrangements possible to leave whist still protecting and expanding our commercial interests. By December 1971 Britain's military prescence in the Gulf was gone, we could concentrate on commerce......
This created a vacuum the Gulf states got together and filled it. By 1973 we had the global energy crisis, this quadrupled oil prices, giving oil-rich Middle Eastern nations massive wealth.
But there was still no overlord to keep the peace to bring stability.....
In 1974, The U.S. and Saudi Arabia formalized an agreement where the Saudis would price their oil exclusively in U.S. dollars. In return, the U.S. provided military support, equipment, and economic cooperation.
By 1975, the rest of the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) nations adopted the same practice, standardizing all global oil trade in U.S. dollars, and so it has remained.......
Until now.
XI has annouced that Chinese payments for oil will now be made in Yuan. Trump is desperate to withdraw. Many Gulf states have worked out that the old architecture US Bases will not work. These bases are a target not protection.
Trump has just begged China for help. Xi refused, but it will happen, when the Gulf states ask, once they get their heads around the idea, the old overlord is going. The trade is overwhemingly mainly with and from China. The Oil goes mainly to China.
Iran, and China are creating the new architecture now, it really just needs the Saudis to agree to this, they will resist, but as soon as that happens we will be there.
Will this mean tolls. No.
Will this mean fees, or so called green taxes, for shipping companies wanting to use Hormuz.....probably.
You did ask for a prediction, so events could prove me wrong.
My defence will be, "ah yes, but it will happen in the future......."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | The bit we disagree on. I think this will turn out to be a sort of 1968. It will be a critical moment, when the power that acts as overlord for the Gulf, pulls out militarily. |
It's possible, it might even be admirable, but we'll know I was right soon enough.
| In 1968 it was the Brits leaving. Britain never officially had colonies in the Gulf, but it had been the pre-eminent foreign power there since the 18th Century. The Labour government decided as the pound crashed, it was time to terminate its commitments in the Middle East. |
OK
| It was the best thing we could do in the situation. We decided to "put Britain first". We of course tried to persuade LBJ to take over, he refused. Undaunted we fudged the best arrangements possible to leave whist still protecting and expanding our commercial interests. By December 1971 Britain's military prescence in the Gulf was gone, we could concentrate on commerce...... |
OK
| This created a vacuum the Gulf states got together and filled it. By 1973 we had the global energy crisis, this quadrupled oil prices, giving oil-rich Middle Eastern nations massive wealth. |
I hadn't made the connection before, so you may have a point.
| But there was still no overlord to keep the peace to bring stability..... In 1974, The U.S. and Saudi Arabia formalized an agreement where the Saudis would price their oil exclusively in U.S. dollars. In return, the U.S. provided military support, equipment, and economic cooperation. |
OK
| By 1975, the rest of the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) nations adopted the same practice, standardizing all global oil trade in U.S. dollars, and so it has remained....... |
OK
The bit presumably we are going to disagree on.
| XI has annouced that Chinese payments for oil will now be made in Yuan. Trump is desperate to withdraw. Many Gulf states have worked out that the old architecture US Bases will not work. These bases are a target not protection. |
This is all war talk. Whether they can walk the walk after the war is another matter.
| Trump has just begged China for help. Xi refused, but it will happen, when the Gulf states ask, once they get their heads around the idea, the old overlord is going. The trade is overwhemingly mainly with and from China. The Oil goes mainly to China. |
But hold on. None of the oil was going to America, was it?
| Iran, and China are creating the new architecture now, it really just needs the Saudis to agree to this, they will resist, but as soon as that happens we will be there. |
Iran, China, Saudi Arabia. Why are the words 'list' and 'bogus' flying round my head?
| Will this mean tolls. No. |
Two out of three on your list would certainly oppose it with all their might.
| Will this mean fees, or so called green taxes, for shipping companies wanting to use Hormuz.....probably. |
I've heard of green fees. Are you getting 'gulf' and 'golf' mixed up?
| You did ask for a prediction, so events could prove me wrong. |
Yes, most unwise of you. You should adopt my policy: predicting nothing will happen and changing the subject if this proves to be wrong.
| My defence will be, "ah yes, but it will happen in the future......." |
Yes, that's always a good one. I've heard it all my life and was why I adopted my 'nothing doing' stance in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Donald Trump: For fuck's sake don't bomb Beirut.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Why not?
Donald Trump: That's what blew the Iranian peace talks last time.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Sure, whatever.
Donald Trump: So I can announce the end of the war in Lebanon?
Benjamin Netanyahu: Sure, whatever.
Donald Trump: I'll check with Hezbollah.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Sure, whatever.
Donald Trump: And you promise to observe the cease-fire?
Benjamin Netanyahu: I promise to carry on with the ceasefire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
