America

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by camazotz
I was trying to make the point that Britain is not exactly blameless in the current situation.
The fact that "death camps" did not come later is irrelevant, anti-semetic persecution was rampant, jews were being violently oppressed, stripped of land and belongings, etc, way before the war started.
The 1930s British governments successively f*cked up everything - Hitler, Palestine, Ireland, India/Pakistan, economic relationships with America and Europe.

ok camazotz NOBODY is saying that the UK is innocent, however in your posts you go over board in saying that Britain is to blame for everything (just like in your last post) You are saying some good things but then fuck it up again with crap!
Jewish people in the 1930s were persecuted everywhere, what was known about Hitlers ways was not all too clear (mainly thought of as a bit more then other countries) I point to you the progroms in Poland and Russia.
for your comments about 30s government ROFL. a bit silly remark.
For all thats worth you can point the finger no matter how often in the end the guilty partie are those that fight

 

[old.Rostam]

well serves any body right, for wanting to be or live in Qatar.

Most those countries are shit holes.

Now Iran. That is a country fir for kings.

p.s I am joking no offence to Kings is intended.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Mr.Blackshirt
for your comments about 30s government ROFL. a bit silly remark.
For all thats worth you can point the finger no matter how often in the end the guilty partie are those that fight

Good point. At the end of the day it's the people killing each other now that are the real problem.

As we've said before about Northern Ireland. There's always a ready supply of people who want to cause mayhem given half an excuse.

 

[Scouse]

"The fact that "death camps" did not come later is irrelevant, anti-semetic persecution was rampant, jews were being violently oppressed, stripped of land and belongings, etc, way before the war started. "

Still better than WAR isn't it? Look at Zimbabwe - people are being violently repressed there, stripped of land and belongings etc, because they're white.

But we haven't gone to WAR to stop that have we? (Not since I last looked).

So - you're saying that Britain should have risked war in the middle east??? O-Kayyyyy...


...As for this

The 1930s British governments successively f*cked up everything - Hitler, Palestine, Ireland, India/Pakistan, economic relationships with America and Europe.

Hitler - we thought it preferable to try and appease the despot rather than go through another world war. With hindsight - the wrong decision. But how unreasonable was the course of action of the Government at the time? Risk another quarter-million British casualties??? We ended up paying the price anyway - but the Government at the time was trying to *avoid* the deaths.

The same as they tried to *avoid* war in the middle east.

Poland's occupied? Do we need 250,000 British deaths if Hitler's not going to go any further? Not really.

We've learned our lesson. That's why we've got involved in successive conflicts since then. (Even if they did need a strong economic reason for us to join in).

Palestine - go back and re-read the reasons why we did what we did.

India/Pakistan? Would you rather that the British had never been there? In particular India - which has one of the biggest burgeoning economies - owes a lot of it's prosperity to British colonialism (which was by no means a "bad" thing - it had it's relative merits).

Economic relationships with America and Europe during the 30's?? Well - we weathered the major slump in the world economy better than any other country. The reason for the decline in Britain's standing until the 80's boom was that we were the first country to go through a major industrialisation, and our capital was locked into technologies that we couldn't easily replace, and we were taken aback by the post-war pace of change. It certainly wasn't because of damaged American and European relations in the 30's.

And:

You'd have been happy for Mr Blair to consider Afghanistan "someone elses problem" would you ?

No.

But then I wouldn't have made such an idiotic speech about an "Axis of Evil" like Bush did.

Americans - they can't even learn from their past mistakes.

 

[Munkey-]

*goes to find Captain Correli's mandolin*

bugger, couldnt find it. but do remember the good doc giving advice to the captain (along these similar lines) "the germans plan their bowl movments 3 months in advance, (forgotten the french one), the british plan everything in retrospect so it appears things happened as they wanted, the italians act as if everything is a party and the spanish......well.....god knows"

i know its wrong but best i can remember after not reading it for a few months

 

[Scouse]

Kyoto was reckoned to cost the world trillions of dollars, and that would have only put off climate change for a few years, not stopped it. The same amount of money could be put to better use, like having the entire world fed and with clean water, that'll save far more lives than stopping the climate ever will.

I disagree m8. In the short-term it would - but if the climate goes tits-up then we won't be able to produce enough food ANYWHERE.

Admittedly - we'll all be long dead by then so WTF

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by Scouse


But then I wouldn't have made such an idiotic speech about an "Axis of Evil" like Bush did.

Bush said that caus he wanted something to remember him by. Like Reagan and the "evil empire" = USSR. Oh and caus that speach of Reagan did help to vocus the americans in battling it out with the russians.

 

[Munkey-]

you have to live out here to appreciate the situation peeps. impossible to go rabitting on abut it unless you understand the people

 

[mr.Blacky]

true but what would be the fun of that

 

[Scouse]

Bush said that caus he wanted something to remember him by. Like Reagan and the "evil empire" = USSR. Oh and caus that speach of Reagan did help to vocus the americans in battling it out with the russians.

Nah - Bush said that because there's mid-term elections coming up and there's nothing like a bit of "I'm gonna kick their ass" to get voters to vote for you.

It was completely irresponsible, and immediately condemed by just about all the allies (apart from us - although Robin Cook did profess not to understand why he said it, but the Mid-Term's looked as good as explanation as any).

What he DID manage to do was piss off Iran. Which wasn't the cleverest thing as we'd made massive strides forward with Iran in recent months - they were even helping us passively in the war in Afghanistan.

The tosser!

 

[xane]

Still better than WAR isn't it?

Well that's the big question, sometimes it _is_ "preferable" to go to war, unfortunately.

War in the middle east happened despite blocking further emigration, which you claim was supposed to prevent it, so you tell me whether the correct decision was made ?

Americans - they can't even learn from their past mistakes

Gonna have to agree with you on this one tho


Re: climate, please note that Kyoto only delays climate change, it does not "cure" it, so that was a short term maneuvre as well. You can argue that by getting the rest of the world developed we can approach climate change better prepared, it's no use telling third-world countries to force catalytic converters on all their 1960 cars if half the population is starving and has no access to clean water !

 

[Scouse]

War in the middle east happened despite blocking further emigration, which you claim was supposed to prevent it, so you tell me whether the correct decision was made ?

I never said we'd made the right decision. I said that you can understand WHY they made the decisions that they did, so you shouldn't be so quick to vilify the government of the time.

And, yes, it is sometimes preferable to go to war.


As for Kyoto - we all knew it wasn't a "cure". There is no quick-fix. But by doing what they did the americans showed their intent and that's the important thing.

 

[Wij]

I still think the risk is massively over-exaggerated because it's trendy. The world has been far hotter and far colder than it is now. I'm off outy into a field now to encourage cows to fart !

 

[Scouse]

Wij. Don't you think it's much better to plan for the worst possibility rather than banking on "it probably won't happen"???

 

[Wij]

We had that in the 80s when everyone was convinced that the ice caps would be melted by 2010. Since that patently isn't happening maybe we should scale the plans down a bit

 

[xane]

Climate change is a big issue, but it is simply not logical to throw money at it like Kyoto proposes, the whole thing was becoming a joke, especially if you consider that only a handful of countries have adopted it.

Bush's decision was more to do with internal politics, his main opponant in the election, Gore, is well known for holding rather extremist ecological policies and is a self-styled doomsday prophet of ecological collapse, Bush wants to show his friends (like the energy companies) the "clear blue water" between them.

That doesn't detract from the fact that Kyoto is (a) a waste of time and (b) a waste of money and (c) a waste of resources. I say "waste" because there are far more simplistic problems to solve, like getting 1 billion people in the world basic things like access to clean water.

America, and many other countries, _have_ learned from the mistakes of pollution and ecological damage, and they _have_ put methods into place that have solved or reduced them, for example the famous "Ozone Hole" is now actually getting repaired due to vastly reduced CFC emissions.

I wouldn't go levelling America as the great Satan of climate change just yet.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and someone may have already mentioned this, but when Israel was created (or sometime afterwards) wasn't it the Muslim world that announced a mass exodus from Palestine/Israel because they didnt want to be next to Jews? If memory serves, thats what happened, then the countries that encouraged the Exodus decided they didn't like Palestinians anyway and sent them all back only to discover that the Israeli's had moved into the empty land, which they then complained about.

I may be wrong.


As for America; I like America but I have a problem with their outlook on things because they have an air of arrogance about the world. Unless it concerns them, it ain't important. I discovered this in New York (after the WTC, I might add) and people actually were arguing that Britains IRA problem "isn't the same" as the the WTC attack.
This, understandably, pissed me off.

I think America needs to wake up and discover they ain't the only people on this planet and that they owe a fucking great deal, including their own country's existence, to others. Apart from that, its an ok place


On another note, with regard to the "War on Terror" I reckon the USA has the right idea and I gotta give them respect for taking the fight to the enemy. Its a job that needs doing.
However, I do think that this should have been done (including Camp X-Ray treament) to the IRA fucking years ago. As it is we have a weak as piss Government that lets the fuckers into Parliment.

 

[Scouse]

Bush wants to show his friends (like the energy companies) the "clear blue water" between them

Like Enron eh? Nice friends.

I wouldn't go levelling America as the great Satan of climate change just yet.

25% of the TOTAL world carbon emissions (3 times more per capita than any european country - and we're pretty bad) and a stated intent to INCREASE this?

They're buying all the 3rd world's pollution credits and using them so they don't have to reduce their carbon emissions. Whereas the 3rd world countries can't get their industry off the ground because we'll throw sanctions at them (because they've sold their "right" to pollute to the yanks).

Hmmm.

 

[xane]

Scouse, your comments only make me more convinced that Kyoto and other climate change proposals are a joke. Whoever thought that "pollution credits" that can be bought and sold was going to solve the problem must have been on some serious medication.

My point is that current ecological controls, including climate change policies, are a big waste of time, and the sooner countries like America start making a mockery of them the better, it may induce us to come up with something workable. I'm not saying we shouldn't attend to climate problems, just that there are far bigger issues to resolve in the world right now.

 

[Scouse]

Scouse, your comments only make me more convinced that Kyoto and other climate change proposals are a joke. Whoever thought that "pollution credits" that can be bought and sold was going to solve the problem must have been on some serious medication.

Actually, it's got quite a sound basis.

Its a flexible working system that countries have signed up to.

The idea is:

1) Everyone gets a number of "credits" based on their current emissions status.

2) You can trade these between countries depending on your projected emissions. If you need to emit more then you need to buy credits - these are very expensive and a certain portion goes to environmental improvements in the country of purchace.

3) If you emit more than you're licenced to then you get very heavily fined; and

4) (The important one). The number of credits worldwide are reduced every year - so overall there has to be a reduction in emissions worldwide or someone's going to be *really* heavily fined.

Fines go to environmental improvement research.


It's a system that is workable, fair and agreeable to most countries. It's flexible aswell which is the key to it. Also it's much easier to administer - global policies MUST be easy to administer.

 

[xane]

Hey, I've got a better idea, instead of paying a bunch of poncey university types with their heads in the clouds money to come up with schemes like this, how about we rid the world of landmines, or provide clean water to every single country, or institute vaccinations, or anti-malaria jabs, or organise stricter STD controls to reduce HIV ?

Why not wipe out third-world debt ?

Why not, because they only affect third-world countries and no-one will notice if they die like flies, doesn't make good marketting, doesn't get the Green party elected either.

 

[Scouse]

How the fuck are you going to organise better STD control in africa??? They won't wear condoms no matter how many free one's you chuck at them.

Bring back landmines - they're fucking excellent. Diana was a twat who didn't know what she was talking about. If you create maps when you lay them then they're easy to remove.

Institute vaccinations - we already have done multiple worldwide vaccination programs (wiped out smallpox etc.)

Wipe out third-world debt??

WHY???

If I default on my mortgage, why don't the banks just let me off then?

We wipe millions off 3rd world debt every year. It costs US as the taxpayer loads. If we wiped out all the debt they owed us we'd end up with an economy like Greece. It's unworkable and it's mostly your heads in the clouds poncy university-types who suggest it.

 

[Will]

Third world debt is a blatent abuse of the world banking system. We lent money, knowing full well the interest payments would cripple the countries, and now they are locked in debt, only partially able to cover the interest.

Drop the debt!!!121!!!1

 

[Scouse]

But I like the clean water thing....

 

[Scouse]

Third world debt is a blatent abuse of the world banking system. We lent money, knowing full well the interest payments would cripple the countries, and now they are locked in debt, only partially able to cover the interest.

And their governments knew full well that they'd never be able to pay it back.

Fuck em.

 

[Will]

Such a globalist view of the world. Yes, some of the rulers at the time knew that. They lined their own pockets with the money, then saddled their peoples with the debt. The interest payments have now covered the debts many times over, and are crippling the countries. Does that sound fair to you?

 

[xane]

STD control is a method of isolation, i.e. if you've got crabs do get told to stay indoors not visit the local sin bin. Tribal communities in most of the third-world are very hard to monitor, which is why they spread so easily.

Landmines today don't have maps, and they are not easy to remove regardless, if they were they would not be very good landmines would they ? Besides "landmines" covers UXBs, with increased incidence since the widespread use of cluster ammunition, for which there can never be maps.

Agreed about Diana, personally I think she should have donated her £40 million divorce settlement to the cause (like she needed it), instead she chose to fart around in a flak jacket for the cameras.

Smallpox was proof it could be done, why stop there.

Actually if you defaulted on your mortgage and were able to prove you had no money to pay, the bank _would_ let you off and claim on the insurance (which you paid for as well). Same applies to third-world, they cannot pay and the banks have insurance anyway.

Besides, wiping out third world debt is a lot more than just writing off what is owed, a policy of getting countries into an economic situation where they can pay for example.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
But I like the clean water thing....

So you should.

Instead of spending trillions of dollars on Kyoto, we can use that money to provide clean water to EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET, it would save 2 million lives every year, and it would be a permanent solution and help jump start many other solutions that need a healthy population to begin with.

Kyoto delays global warming by a decade at the most, and then we have to pay for the consequences anyway, you may want to weight the human cost in "deaths" instead of dollars, but the clean water idea is still better.

 

[old.Rostam]

It is not in most of the western countries interest for a fully developed independent country in africa, they have natural reasources which can be exploited.

 

[Will]

In the case, write to your MP and state your case. That's what he is there for. One voice isn't much, but if everyone raised their issues of concern...you get the picture.