Is the western involvement in the wars in the middle east just for economic reasons?

The western involvement in the middle east has been going on for a long time and still more conflicts are being found and created! The truth is the whole point of these wars isn’t to create stability and bring peace a mere power struggle to control the middle east and its oil. The fighting in the middle east is nothing more than a economic tactic!  Politicians will use discourse highlighting the suffering of the middle eastern people to tug at the heart string of its citizens and to encourage backing and support from its people that intervention is the morally right thing to do.  Images of powerful dictators with the power to destroy are created by the politicians and the media…”weapons of mass destruction” to the new “chemical weapons in Syria” create paranoia fueling the fire that war is the only solution.

But what the politicians are telling you and what the media is trying to fill your minds with is propaganda and lies. There are plenty of other countries that are suffering much worse fates than in the middle east at the moment.. from genocides and ruthless dictatorships in third world countries but these countries and people do not matter to the west because going to war with the dictators there will not have any economic rewards…. so these countries are ignored. Somalia has a huge problem with al queda and terroism many thousands in this country are suffering and die each day but little is said on the media about Somalia and even though Somalia is one of the number 1 training grounds for Al queda the west cant be bothered and doesn’t want to get involved with Somalia. Is this because somalia is not economically benificailly to the west or is there another even more sinister answer that Al queda or in Pakistan the Taliban are not the real targets in the middle east but the countries that are getting in the way of oil plans and the Wests greed for oil like Iran and Syria?


Plutocracy destroying democracy. Who does the government really represent?

Plutocracy is threatening democracy but what causes plutocracy and is plutocracy the only threat to democracy?

It is a question that many of us want to know.. Who does the government really represent the poor or the rich? In the United kingdom the large majority of MP’s are from well off backgrounds, brought up in the rich affluent areas (London, Cambridge, Oxford) socializing only with the elite of society living a life of luxury a far cry away to that of others in the same country living in relative poverty. Call me jealous if you want but it isn’t down to hard work or determination that they gained these privileged lives many where simply born into them. Many from the same aristocrat family’s that once ruled over London in Charles Dickens day.

So why did these politicians become politicians in the first place? To help the poor? to represent the people that they have had no integration with before? or to secure their wealth and position in society? Being a member of parliament gives you great control and power, from decision making to the passing of laws.

With the great influence these politicians have on the running of the country who do they really serve? Their buddies or the majority’s that threaten their wealth and security?

It costs a lot to run a campaign in the elections, the government cannot simply use the public’s money but they need to get it from somewhere… donations from others is the main way they do this. This begs the question as to why and who would give the political party’s its cash… donations aren’t bribes but they carry great influence and could actually tie down the political party to who ever is giving them their donations.

A big company could choose to give donations to political party’s that favor their company or even their monopoly (such as laws, which will positively effect their business) this will then give more exposure and give that political party a better campaign than others increasing their chances of winning the election.

Something you also must ask yourself is would a political party really take action towards a cooperation or company who where doing something untoward if that company was the political party’s main source of donations?

Democracy is about fairness and equality giving everyone a equal opportunity to succeed, but plutocracy caused by the concentration of wealth around the top 1% has changed this and has resulted in the stagnation of social mobility too.

Plutocracy allows for big company’s and monopoly’s  to have great political influences that can impact others and destroy democracy all together. Plutocracy has the power to silence any other rising political party’s that are not corrupt…. with connections in the media the big monopoly’s can easily create negative or just non existent publicity for other political party’s.
So even voting for others is not a option anymore either because who do you vote for? There are three major political party’s in the UK (Conservatives, Labour, and Lib dems).. the choice of only three party’s, three views is hardly a democratic.. and that is if you are even saying that the three party’s have different views to begin with.

Plutocracy has been around for along time and until a non greedy politician comes along who really does represent the people then politicians will be just employees of the vast trans national cooperation that really control the country.


Privatisation of the Royal Mail

The privatisation of the Royal Mail, is just another greedy exploit from the conservatives and plutocrats. The Privatisation of the Royal Mail does little to benefit the vast majority of citizens here in the UK.. much the opposite in fact, as I will explain now. The whole point of privatizing the royal mail isn’t to help the general public reap the rewards of the huge sale of this very English company but to help boost the bank accounts of the rich friends of the conservatives. We are already hearing how the royal mail shares have been sold of very cheaply (to whom? the average working person? I think not!) And how huge foreign company’s have been quick to grab their bargain shares in huge chunks. It has been English taxes that has helped build the Royal mail yet foreign company’s are now reaping the rewards and profits from the royal mail that has been built up through years and years of hard work and dedication from English people. Now all that hard work will simply not go to the English but rich foreigners in other countries. The government should not have put the royal mail on the stock market there really was no need.. the royal mail was doing well and one of the few nationally owned company’s that was making money for our country! But the greedy plutocrats wanted their money now and so the government agreed… without a care about our country. The conservative really do not care about the UK at all…. they are only in politics to make money and to help out their rich friends! What will the conservative privatize next? Our health services maybe? The poor paying the rich for the right to live… yep that sounds like something the conservatives (tories) would want.

As always we had no vote on the the privatisation of the Royal Mail… because as always the politics do not respect the peoples views and ALWAYS know best… well they will do what suits them at least.

Drone attacks… Good or bad?

Drone attacks… Good or bad? Drone attacks a tactical and calculated weapon to kill terrorist swiftly and break the risk of gun battle on the ground. Drone strikes are meant to be reserved for high risk terrorists where there are no other options. But why are there so many of these drone attacks happening if these drones are only meant for terrorists leaders planning attacks in America? Or are the drones now a weapon for any minor threat?

Killing and violence is morally wrong So are the drones just an example of how diplomacy has gone out the window and the only right solution is the American governments solution? Or are the American government powerless? After all the Taliban are funded and supported by Saudi Arabia. As having the Taliban control Afghanistan would help them go to war with Iran. Saudi Arabia is one of the most oil rich countries in the world that supplies, America is held to ransom as America cannot go to war with their biggest oil suppliers as it would have huge economic consequences and would drive oil prices through the roof.
Drone strikes are not 100% accurate and will cause collateral damage and kill innocent people after all just because there are terrorists in a particular country doesn’t mean everyone in the country is a terrorist they are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It should be the duty of the American government and policy makers to avoid any loss of life on either side… working towards a peaceful solution that helps restore peace and unity to the Pole of the country. Drone’s only bring fear and terror to the people living their day to day lives in the country already plagued by violence. The collateral damage drone’s cause creates resentment and anger towards the Americans… by destroying peoples homes and lives is more likely to turn them to the other side against America rather than for America.

The drones will never win the war only diplomacy and creating trust in the Afghanistan people will creating a stable country will mean the Taliban will have a lot harder job controlling a much stronger country. The Taliban are evil and do not represent the people of Afghanistan at all the Taliban have been created, trained and funded by other foreign countries including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with a abundance of brainwashed recruits joining the Taliban means that the drones wont succeed in destroying the Taliban but only halt them. The drones help to prevent the Taliban from entering Afghanistan but in doing so the collateral damage creates friction and anger towards America. The American government should focus on eliminating the funding and support to the Taliban coming from the other foreign countries.

War is bad! why justify it?


What a dumb thing to say. War cannot be justified… and even if it could be a small paragraph would not suffice. This infamous quote from John Stuart Mills  is just one of many thought up by the elite who are trying to brainwash people to fight there greedy wars. So according to this quote if you are not fighting then there isn’t anything worth living for.

This whole quote is just one big contradiction, propaganda and idiocy to say the least.. for example John Stuart Mills says how someone who has nothing to fight for and wont because of fear of dieing is a miserable creature? So we all do not have a right to live? and should fight someones war for a cause we do not know all because if we dont we are miserable creatures and will not be free?

To often people go to war as if they dont they will be labeled a coward! But it is actually the governments greed and cowardliness to send innocent people to war to fight strangers that is truly ugly. Diplomacy is not something these narcissist elite want.. power is what they are after at what ever cost.

The causes of wars are from the elite of a country’s society protecting their own personal wealth, it is quite “rich” that John Stuart mills says that those who do not fight because they are protecting their own personal safety is remarkably arrogant and hypocrisy at its finest.

Degraded feeling of patriotic feeling hey? Well we dont choose where we are born its not my fault if I live in a rubbish country where there are no jobs and the elite are destroying morals and everything good… why should I fight for that evil? just because some one is born in a country doesn’t automatically mean that they must fight and die for that country.. that would be a dictatorship.

This quote is a prime example of the elitist attitude towards others.

Is communism and capitalism evil?

The concept and idea that everyone is equal and nobody suffers and everyone has a equal chance is not evil<< both a communist and a capitalist will argue for these ideals. Perfect communism is not evil but is impossible and will always mean a country under communism will be ruled by the elite government where the wealth and power is concentrated on those in government where everyone else slaves for them.

Capitalism can lead to same kind of thing but rather than the government being in control huge cooperation’s are. But Monopoly capitalism is a lot worse than communism by far with communism yes you are a slave to the government but at-least everyone will have a job and part to play, but with capitalist monopoly’s rather than the government wanting to seem under control of the economy making sure everyone has a job and the economy runs smoothly capitalist company’s don’t care, The recession we are under today has been caused by capitalist greed. not from the majority but from the minority’s at the top.

This is proof how careless and how selfish capitalism is, the whole point to capitalism is not equality its whole based on inequality and being the richest.

There is a strong link between capitalism and communism which is peoples greed.. a natural human trait that is maybe down to Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest which begs the question are humans just immoral and as long as they survive who cares about the rest?

It not that Communism, or capitalism that is evil it is the evil of society that is and how power can corrupt those who are in charge.

Can you think of a alternative to communism or capitalism? or do you totally disagree with me on this post? Then comment below and say so!

Why it is important to be tall especially if you’re a politician

It is important to be taken seriously, especially if you are a politician. The whole point of leadership is to influence people and height will help you do this. If not the politician regardless or there power and country they are in charge of, may very well be looked down upon if they are small.

Is your President, or leader small? It may not be just their policies that create a great leader but there height too. You maybe thinking that this is a silly concept and that their have been lots of small leaders.. but psychological studies have shown that people perception of smaller people is lesser than taller people.. so if your leader is small it creates a negative perception of your whole country as a whole.

A classic example of why being tall is important in politics is when George bush refereed to the president of Nicaragua, Mr Ortega as “That little man,” George bush said this in response and anger to  when Ortega wanted to break a peace treaty that the American government spent along time developing investing a huge amount of funds. The fact though is that Ortega isn’t small at all he is actually 5ft 10 beating the average height of many Americans, but it goes to show that even presidents judge other’s upon there height.

Psychological studies in the 1960’s can prove my point that height is important, where a leading psychologist at the time, Paul Wilson did a few experiments involving 2 rooms of different students at a university where by they where each room were introduced to an individual but in one room this individual was introduced as a student and in the other room the same person was introduced to a different set of students as a professor… afterwards the students where asked after meeting the individual to estimate his height.. it was seen that those in the classroom who where introduced to the professor estimated the individuals height as taller (2 inches taller on average) to those in the classroom where they thought he was a student.

This shows that social status can influence peoples perception on how tall they think you are, the students would also be more influenced by the taller professor than the smaller student. This shows there is a link between influence and height… So what if your leader like Napoleon is well known for being small and other countries mock their height just like how George Bush mocked Ortega this in effect destroys the authority of your countries leadership (decisions the countries make) and the actual country itself.. will other countries take your country seriously?

It isn’t just in the political world that being tall is important but as you may have guessed is that leadership is a crucial role in business i am sure that you will see a boss who is tall will have a lot more authority than one that is smaller than you am I right?

Barack Obama Wins Democratic Presidential Nomination

It turns out that I was prescient when I predicted over two years ago that Barack Obama would win the Democratic nomination for President. Here’s what I wrote in October 2006:

“…But Obama’s answer also speaks to a different style of politics than we’ve seen from the Karl Roves and James Carville’s of our generation–it’s a politics of statesmanship that transcends partisanship…

Folks, this man WILL be the President, should he seek that office in the future. The only question is, how long will he wait to make the run.”

As it turned out, Obama decided to run for President sooner rather than later, and is nine delegates away from clinching the nomination. Today was a historic and dramatic day as over thirty superdelegates, some former Clinton supporters like Maxine Waters, announced their support for Obama. Given that South Dakota’s polls close in less than hour, we should know whether that state will put him over the top very soon, or Montana one hour later. Of course, within the next two hours, expect a flood of additional superdelegates to announce their support for Obama.

To answer my own question from 2006–Barack Obama is indeed the real deal. June 3, 2008 will forever be remembered as the day that the United States crossed a critical threshold–nominating the first African-American presidential candidate of a major party. Today is a day to be celebrated and cherished, and it is hard to overstate its historic significance. Of course, November 7, 2008 will arguably be that much more important.

Two key issues will dominate the election coverage in the coming weeks, who will Obama pick as a running mate, and how will Obama defeat McCain in the general election?

There is rampant speculation that the Obama campaign is considering Hillary Clinton as a running mate, and although she wouldn’t be my first choice, I’d be willing to consider it on the merits if it really was THE only way to defeat McCain in the general.

John Edwards Secures Major Union Endorsements: United Steelworkers and United Mine Workers

FYI-the Bubble is back up and running after a brief hieatus…let’s jump back into the 2008 primaries:

Edwards today will announce that his campaign will receive the endorsements of the largest unions to date, and yet the New York Times and Washington Post refuse to put this story on the front page of their sites. This is a huge victory for Edwards, and yet the media seems to be more concerned about Fred Thompson’s upcoming announcement of his candidacy, and Hillary Clinton’s latest strategic shift.

Apparently, the New York Times is more concerned about Hillary Clinton’s new stump speech, which now emphasizes promoting change “by working in the system established by the Constitution” and her four new goals:


Huh? Can you possibly be more vague? While each of these sounds very promising, IMHO, only the first one resonates with the base of activist Democratic primary voters. The other three sound like throwaway catch-phrases from Terry McAullife, Harold Ford and the DLC centrists who are staking their political futures on Hillary.

By winning the endorsements of the Steelworkers and UMW, John Edwards today has truly earned something substantive that he can go to primary voters with–proof that his candidacy stands for something that American labor supports and can get behind. And these endorsements could help make the difference in Iowa and New Hampshire.

As for the Obama campaign, they’re going to need to lock down some labor endorsements fast. Because otherwise, the Obama campaign’s outsider reform message may get crowded out between Hillary’s DLC centrism, and Edwards’ strong backing from labor. At this point, though, Obama’s support is the closest in approximating Howard Dean’s in 2004, in terms of broad-based, net-roots support.

It’ll be interesting to see how this impacts the race, and whether this and other labor endorsements can help catapult Edwards into 2nd in national polls. But judging from media coverage of this development, that’s doubtful.

Update – 9:31 AM: CNN now has the Edwards story up on their front page. Is CNN leaning toward Edwards? Or are they just the most “fair and balanced’?

John Edwards Releases Tax Plan

Edwards announced a new tax plan today that calls for relief for the poor and repealing the Bush tax cut for the super-rich:



These are all good ideas, but here’s an additional one the Edwards campaign should seriously consider. How about exempting the first $27,000 (or whatever is considered the poverty line) of household income from any federal taxes, while raising the tax on millionaires to a flat 50% tax on income of one million or more? (The latter part of this idea was proposed by someone in the youtube debate). And how about making the tax code more progressive by making rent and groceries tax-deductable?

It’s the folks at the very bottom of the income ladder, not the wealthiest, who need real reductions in their tax burden.