Defending your country is not murder.

[Makalakumu]

This is just not true. The pound has not inflated. In fact the Australian dollar has even risen against the pound. The Euro has devalued thanks to Greece and a few other countries that don't believe in paying tax. But the US dollar is down because of 'fiscal easing'. You can't just keep printing money to pay for services. Every time you print more money the value of the currency falls. Best example would be the Zimbabwe dollar. ($1 US = $373 Zim)

But, this thread is not about justifying war, Afghanistan or other. It is not about past colonial ambitions. It is about the treatment of service personal both during and after their service career.

So back on thread, we have 5 Royal Marines who are in custody over the death of an insurgent after a fire fight. We don't have all the facts. Do you think they are being treated fairly, based on what we do know?

Fair enough. I think I've seen enough to really understand where people stand. You are absolutely wrong about the pound though and other currencies. They have inflated and a major reason is because of war.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/watson070805.html

A rare and desirable coin was sold on eBay recently. It was an English Edward VI gold pound coin minted in 1550. When it sold for £1,379 ($2,500), the spot price of gold was about £237 per ounce. Weighing 11.31 grammes and being 22 carat gold would give this coin a gold content of about 0.3334oz or a current metal value of £79.

Now think about this. For the next 400 years the value of that gold pound (or sovereign) would fluctuate according to the various wars that Britain got involved in until 1931. In that year, Britain went off the gold standard and the last monetized sovereign weighed 0.2354oz. This is only a devaluation in gold terms of 30% but what happened next as a fiat money regime was introduced for the next 70 years?

A British pound is now valued at 0.0042oz, in other words, a 2005 British pound has 1.26% the purchasing power of the 1550 pound in terms of gold. More worrying is the fact that it only has 1.78% the purchasing power of the sovereign we mentioned from 1931. This was calculated by dividing the 0.0042oz into 0.2354oz. As a confirmation of this, the British Office For National Statistics was consulted to determine the official purchasing power of the British pound. They published a document in 2004 detailing pound inflation since 1750, which can be found here. The numbers for 1931 and 2004 given in table 3 are 602.8 for 1931 and 14.0 for 2003. We can estimate that 2005 is probably 13.5 based on continuing deterioration of the pound. This makes the 2005 British pound worth 2.24% of a 1931 pound. This contrasts with the 1.78% for gold value. As you can see, gold has reflected the depreciation of the British pound very well despite being decoupled from the monetary system.

Inflation is how government steals money from the unborn in order for oligarchs to pay for their wars.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-and-inflation.html

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Consider Thomas Paine: "Paper money is like dram-drinking, it relieves for a moment by deceitful sensation, but gradually diminishes the natural heat, and leaves the body worse than it found it. Were not this the case, and could money be made of paper at pleasure, every sovereign in Europe would be as rich as he pleased…. Paper money appears at first sight to be a great saving, or rather that it costs nothing; but it is the dearest money there is. The ease with which it is emitted by an assembly at first serves as a trap to catch people in at last. It operates as an anticipation of the next year's taxes."[/FONT]

Beautiful analogy and well understood by America's Founding Fathers. Too bad we lost our way and dragged the rest of the world with us. Sorry guys.

 

[Instructor]

I wonder what Thomas Paine would think of our current state of affairs?

 

[K-man]

Fair enough. I think I've seen enough to really understand where people stand. You are absolutely wrong about the pound though and other currencies. They have inflated and a major reason is because of war.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/watson070805.html

Inflation is how government steals money from the unborn in order for oligarchs to pay for their wars.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-and-inflation.html



Beautiful analogy and well understood by America's Founding Fathers. Too bad we lost our way and dragged the rest of the world with us. Sorry guys.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems to me that the article is talking about depreciation of the pound against gold, not inflation. Inflation causes the value of the currency to go down, not up. In other words, since the abolition of the gold standard countries can do what they like with their currency. It's a lot to do with smoke and mirrors. The US dollar only has the value it has because a lot of foreign countries believe the US economy is stronger than it really is. They buy US dollars to protect their own financial position as their own currency drops in value.

The strength of the pound now has nothing to do with war. (Your article doesn't say war inflates the pound, it says it fluctuates.) it is because the Poms were sensible enough to stay away from a common European currency and the unsustainable debt and 'fiscal easing' of the US.

 

[Makalakumu]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems to me that the article is talking about depreciation of the pound against gold, not inflation. Inflation causes the value of the currency to go down, not up. In other words, since the abolition of the gold standard countries can do what they like with their currency. It's a lot to do with smoke and mirrors. The US dollar only has the value it has because a lot of foreign countries believe the US economy is stronger than it really is. They buy US dollars to protect their own financial position as their own currency drops in value.

The strength of the pound now has nothing to do with war. (Your article doesn't say war inflates the pound, it says it fluctuates.) it is because the Poms were sensible enough to stay away from a common European currency and the unsustainable debt and 'fiscal easing' of the US.

The depreciation of currency against gold is a measure of inflation. Inflation has always been tied to war because governments "print" the money to pay for it. Both articles describe the relationship between inflation and war. One gives you a physical standard to measure and the other provides the economic theory to explain it. Historically, governments decouple their currencies from tangible substance in times of war in order to pay for it and the resultant fiat money always inflates to nothing because there is no restraint. The end result is that the oligarchs get their war and the people get poverty and paper. Inflation is theft. Almost all war is murder for profit by few. Nationalism is an illusion used to prop the whole scheme up.

 

[K-man]

The depreciation of currency against gold is a measure of inflation.

Spot on.

Inflation has always been tied to war because governments "print" the money to pay for it.

Can't agree totally here. Many wars start in tough times when there is already monetary crisis. You can't always just print money to pay for war or you destroy your own economy by increasing the price of the imports you need to grow your economy.

Both articles describe the relationship between inflation and war. One gives you a physical standard to measure and the other provides the economic theory to explain it. Historically, governments decouple their currencies from tangible substance in times of war in order to pay for it and the resultant fiat money always inflates to nothing because there is no restraint.

Definition of the Gold Standard

My normally extensive Economics Glossary does not have an entry on the gold standard, so we'll have to look elsewhere for a definition. An extensive essay on the gold standard on The Encyclopedia of Economics and Liberty defines the gold standard as "a commitment by participating countries to fix the prices of their domestic currencies in terms of a specified amount of gold. National money and other forms of money (bank deposits and notes) were freely converted into gold at the fixed price." A county under the gold standard would set a price for gold, say $100 an ounce and would buy and sell gold at that price. This effectively sets a value for the currency; in our fictional example $1 would be worth 1/100th of an ounce of gold. Other precious metals could be used to set a monetary standard; silver standards were common in the 1800s. A combination of the gold and silver standard is known as bimetallism.
A Very Brief History of the Gold Standard

If you would like to learn about the history of money in detail, there is an excellent site called A Comparative Chronology of Money which details the important places and dates in monetary history. During most of the 1800s the United States was had a bimetallic system of money, however it was essentially on a gold standard as very little silver was traded. A true gold standard came to fruition in 1900 with the passage of the Gold Standard Act. The gold standard effectively came to an end in 1933 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt outlawed private gold ownership (except for the purposes of jewelery). The Bretton Woods System, enacted in 1946 created a system of fixed exchange rates that allowed governments to sell their gold to the United States treasury at the price of $35/ounce. "The Bretton Woods system ended on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed". The gold standard has not been used in any major economy since that time.
What Do We Use Today?


Almost every country, including the United States, is on a system of fiat money, which the glossary defines as "money that is intrinsically useless; is used only as a medium of exchange". We saw in the article "Why Does Money Have Value" that the value of money is set by the supply and demand for money and the supply and demand for other goods and services in the economy. The prices for those goods and services, including gold and silver, are allowed to fluctuate based on market forces.

The end result is that the oligarchs get their war and the people get poverty and paper. Inflation is theft. Almost all war is murder for profit by few. Nationalism is an illusion used to prop the whole scheme up.

Your last para is perhaps a tad cynical, but I ask you once more. What is your opinion on the plight of the British servicemen in custody? :asian:

 

[Tez3]

It may surprise many in the States who have always thought of us as a poor relation but Britain is a rich country, one reason we are asking for the troops to be well looked after. The Afghan war has cost so far £20 billion (for the ten years), every year however we give £12.4 billion in foreign aid....charity. If anything is costing us money and should be seriously looked at is the fact we pay £40 million a DAY to the EU! The estimated net worth in the UK has risen by 81% since 1995 and that's in a recession. Being honest the financial cost of the war is a drop in the ocean, here the cost of the EU is far more likely to be the cause of our unborn not having houses etc. The cost of foreign aid is also a contentious one. Our government, Conservative of course, is set on making the working class pay for the rich, as it has always done, it's an old story and as usual they are treating the military badly, no surprise they always do it. They didn't win the last election by the way, they enticed the Lib Dems to join them and we have a Coalition, and it's not going well, it's as amusing as it's tragic.

 

[arnisador]

the Falklands

Might be time to just let Argentina have them, by the way. That one was not worth fighting over.

 

[K-man]

Might be time to just let Argentina have them, by the way. That one was not worth fighting over.

Did you happen to run that suggestion past the British citizens that live there?

 

[arnisador]

Did you happen to run that suggestion past the British citizens that live there?

Yeah, both of them were OK with it, but a few of the sheep had reservations about how the different tax treatments could affect their investment accounts.

The Falklands War was just sad. It isn't a great example to bring up.

 

[Tez3]

Yeah, both of them were OK with it, but a few of the sheep had reservations about how the different tax treatments could affect their investment accounts.

The Falklands War was just sad. It isn't a great example to bring up.

It's more justified than Iraq and Afghan and certainly more justifiable than invading Grenada.

The people on the Falklands are British, wish to remain that way and will as long as it can be done. Would you hand Hawaii over to another country who decided to claim it? Would you hand Alaska over to the Russians? The Argentinians killed civilian Falkland Islanders, that's how peaceful their intentions were, at the time though the Argentinians government were merrily killing off a lot of their own people so how do you think the rest of the Islanders would have fared? Genocide most likely and the Islanders replaced by Argentinians, now if you're happy with that outcome...... that really is sad. You don't have to like what happened, we don't actually care, we did what had to be done to save British people, if you wouldn't do the same for Americans then I'm sorry but there's no way you are going to rubbish the job the troops did in the Falklands

 

[arnisador]

It's more justified than Iraq and Afghan

Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Someone hiding in Afghanistan bombed the U.S. and killed thousands. That's a different story.

The people on the Falklands are British, wish to remain that way and will as long as it can be done. Would you hand Hawaii over to another country who decided to claim it?

The Argentines didn't just suddenly "decide to claim" the Malvinas. The age of empire is over--do the right thing, United Kingdom.

Would you hand Alaska over to the Russians?

When did you purchase the Falklands?

 

[K-man]

The Argentines didn't just suddenly "decide to claim" the Malvinas. The age of empire is over--do the right thing, United Kingdom.

When did you purchase the Falklands?

When did the US purchase Texas?

The Argentinians have as much claim to the Falklands as Australia has to Hawaii. That is none!

Others with claims to the Falklands?
France .. maybe.
Spain ... maybe.
They were both there at some time.

And while I'm thinking of Hawaii, just how did that become US territory?

I'm reminded of people who live in glass houses! :asian:

 

[Tez3]

Glass houses indeed!

However the basic mistake you are making is that in thinking the Falklands are a colony. They aren't. They have their own government and make their own decisions. I suggest you do what we do and ask them how they see their future. While they want to stay British we will honour their wishes, if they want independance they will have it but we don't have the power nor the will to hand them over to anyone else. We can't legally do it and nor will we morally abandon them. The choice I can assure you is all theirs. If the Argentinians took the Falklands they would indeed become a colony which I repeat they aren't now, why would they give their freedom up? You would prefer these British people to become an Argentinian colony even though you think colonism should be finished with?
The Islanders have an independance to run their own lives in a way that Americans should be pleased about yet you would have their autonomy taken away and have them ruled from Buenos Aires?

http://www.falklands.gov.fk//Government.html

"Though an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, the Falkland Islands enjoys a large measure of internal self government. Negotiations with Her Majesty's Government have resulted in a new Constitution that will further strengthen this position.

There is a Legislative Assembly which is Chaired by the Speaker and includes two ex-officio members: the Chief Executive and the Director of Corporate Resources. The Attorney General and Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands (CBFSAI) are also entitled to attend Legislative Assembly meetings.

Each year the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) elect three of their number to the policy making body of the Government, Executive Council. Executive Council is chaired by HE the Governor. Membership includes the same ex-officio members who sit on the Legislative Assembly. In addition, the Attorney General and CBFSAI may attend and speak on any matter.

The Legislative Assembly is empowered to pass legislation for the peace, order and good government of the Falkland Islands, subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, acting through her Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Legislative Assembly meetings are held in public, usually bi-monthly.

Executive Council normally meets monthly, but more often if required. It is responsible for the formulation of strategy and policy, and for high level management decisions. Under the Falkland Islands Constitution the Governor retains responsibility for various issues, particularly external affairs and defence. The Governor nevertheless consults regularly with MLAs on these issues.

All members are elected as independents, as there are no political parties. There is no formal opposition. Each MLA takes responsibility for a particular portfolio and works closely with the relevant departments, but does not have the role of a Minister; instead, questions of policy are considered by the Executive Council. "

The Constitution

A new Constitution for the Falkland Islands came into operation on 1 January 2009. It was agreed by the UK Government and the Falkland Islands Government. The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 was made on 5 November 2008 by Her Majesty the Queen in the Privy Council.

The new Constitution can be viewed here: The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 - Final Version.

The Falklands have developed considerably both economically and socially since the previous Falkland Islands' Constitution came in to operation in 1985, and the new Constitution reflects this. The Islanders' right to determine their own future has been reinforced, as self-determination is now embedded in the main body of the Constitution. The Constitution enhances local democracy, while retaining sufficient powers for the UK Government to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory. It provides for greater transparency and accountability through the creation of a Public Accounts Committee and a Complaints Commissioner, and the rights chapter has been brought up to date to bring it into line with international agreements.

The new Constitution makes much clearer Councillors' responsibility for most domestic policies and that, in general, the Governor will now have to abide by the advice of the Executive Council on such matters. But the new Constitution will also enshrine a power for the Governor not to act upon Executive Council's advice "in the interests of good governance", or in relation to external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police), the administration of justice, audit, and management of the public service.

Other important changes include: recognition is given to the Chief Executive as head of the public service, but under the authority and direction of the Governor; and it is in line with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. There are also some changes to who has Falkland Islands Status (which brings with it the right to vote) through the Constitution - references to Commonwealth citizens are replaced by British citizens, British Overseas Territories Citizens will now have to apply for status rather than get it automatically on naturalisation/registration, and spouses will also now have to apply for status.

The previous Falkland Islands Constitution had been in force since 1985 (amended in 1997).

In April 2000, a Select Committee on the Review of the Constitution was set up by Legislative Council, following the suggestion in the 1999 UK White Paper on the Overseas Territories (OTs). It recommends that all OTs should examine their Constitutions and constitutional relationships with the UK to ensure that they suited all the current day circumstances.

The first formal report of the Select Committee was published in October 2005. Following the General Election in November 2005, the Select Committee reconvened to enable the new Council to consider the Report and propose amendments to it.

The Second Report was published in August 2006.

Falkland Islanders were consulted throughout the process through the publication of several documents raising particular subjects for consideration as well as discussions held between Councillors and groups of constituents.

A Final Report was submitted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in May 2007.

Following negotiations between the Select Committee and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a draft Constitution was produced for public consultation. All Falkland Islanders had opportunity to discuss and comment on it at all stages before it was finalised.

and you would take their freedom away from them, interesting. I would have thought an American who believe imperialism was dead would be pleased that the Falklands govern themselves, make their own decisions and actually have a far greater say in what goes in their country than either most Americans or Britons.

If they wanted to be Argentinians they would be it really is as simmple as that. If and when they become an independant state will you still say they should be given over to Argentina?

And if you are thinking of the British interest in the oil and minerals in that area you should know that Britian offered and negociated for Argentina to have half of whatever is there, it was negociated with the Presidents husband. However the President later reneged on the deal.

and talking of colonies and glass houses.

"Islands in the Pacific Ocean

• American Samoa: (since 1898): locally self-governing under a constitution last revised in 1967.[SUP][14][/SUP]
  • Swains Island: Annexed by the United States on March 4, 1925, currently administered by American Samoa, and claimed by Tokelau (a dependency of New Zealand).
• Wake Island: no longer under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy, now only inhabited by civilian contractors. It is now primarily a wildlife refuge.
• Midway Islands: no longer under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy, now inhabited only by caretakers. It is now primarily a wildlife refuge.
• Johnston Atoll: last used by the Department of Defense in about 2005.
• Baker Island: now uninhabited
• Howland Island: now uninhabited
• Jarvis Island: now uninhabited
• Kingman Reef: now uninhabited

Islands in the Caribbean Sea

• Bajo Nuevo Bank: uninhabited; also claimed by Colombia, by Nicaragua, and by Jamaica.
• Serranilla Bank: currently the site of a Colombian naval garrison; also claimed by Nicaragua, and by Honduras.
• Navassa Island: uninhabited; claimed by Haiti.
  
• Not to mention this one

The United States exercises some degree of extraterritorial jurisdiction over its embassy, overseas military, and leased areas such as:

• Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (since 1903): A 45 sq mi (117 km[SUP]2[/SUP]) area of land along Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to which the United States holds a perpetual lease.[SUP][15][/SUP] This is disputed by the Cuban government. The U.S. pays its annual lease payment by check, but the Cuban government has refused to cash them for decades.
• Certain other parcels in foreign countries held by lease, such as military bases, depending on the terms of a lease, treaty, or status of forces agreement with the host country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States

 

[Tez3]

American set great store by their Constitution, should they not also then respect the Falkland Islands Constitition and stop thinking they are a colony? It demans the Falkland Islanders especially the ones who died in the Falklands war and those who have given their lives in two World Wars. They govern themselves under a British umbrella, why should they have their rights taken way?

 

[Makalakumu]

What is your opinion on the plight of the British servicemen in custody? :asian:

I think they should be released. I don't see what they did as any worse than what anyone else is doing. If the war is unjust in the first place, no amount of rules of engagement are going to make it just.

That said, much has been said about the ideals that people stand for in this thread. Much has been claimed about service to this or that country and what it represents.

I would wager that there are no principles that a nation claims that aren't completely contradicted by it's actions. Which leads me back to my original question that sparked so much controversy. Why do people fight for this in the first place? Why is "nation" placed above one's own personal principles?

I've never understood why my fellow humans do this.

So, yeah, I hope they are released. I hope they realize the error of serving a fundamentally corrupt institution. I hope they someday try to make personal amends with the people they slew unjustly.

 

[Makalakumu]

By people I mean kin, fyi. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[arnisador]

However the basic mistake you are making is that in thinking the Falklands are a colony. They aren't. They have their own government and make their own decisions.

I was impressed by the way they used their own military to defend themselves, too. And remind--they have their own king, right?

 

[arnisador]

American set great store by their Constitution, should they not also then respect the Falkland Islands Constitition

Oh please. It's part of the U.K. Let's not pretend otherwise.

It demans the Falkland Islanders especially the ones who died in the Falklands war and those who have given their lives in two World Wars.

How on earth does it demean World War veterans? Would they not have deserved respect if they had been Argnetinian?

 

[arnisador]

Much has been claimed about service to this or that country and what it represents.

I would wager that there are no principles that a nation claims that aren't completely contradicted by it's actions. Which leads me back to my original question that sparked so much controversy. Why do people fight for this in the first place? Why is "nation" placed above one's own personal principles?

I've never understood why my fellow humans do this.

Because they're primates, and tribal urges rule.

More high-mindedly, if others are going to attack you then you either have to give in and fight. I wouldn't want to be speaking German right now--not that I have anything against the language, but because of the politics of those who would've brought it.

I'm not fond of attacking others, but in Afghanistan the first blow was struck by bin Laden in this round--yes, there's a long history, but I can't change that at this point--and going there made sense. Not everything that happened thereafter did, of course, but to fail to but bin LAden on the defensive would have left us open to more attacks.

 

[Makalakumu]

You can't forget the previous history. That explains much about the quality of the pretenses. Regardless, I supported going after OBL in the beginning, before I knew better, but this quickly moved beyond him and AQ after Tora Bora and the so called "air lift of evil". The truth is that the government was intent on "nation building" before 9/11.

So, when do the false pretenses finally get taken into account.