Yes, I have heard that foreign-exchange officers sometimes take part in hostilities despite the official position of their government but being a strictly neutral Dutchman I wouldn't know anything about that [cough]
(kim)
Hmmm, that would put you in the same category as Japan and the US - everyone but you remembers your past! Ouch!
There's a certain logic in going where the money is, and another in going where the people who are repressing you live - they're much less likely to kick your door in at 4am if you live next door to their grannies.
Regards, Greg.P.
You mean you've kept the price of crude oil down?
It's hard work banking respect! ;-)
It's an ever intensifying circle which earns you hatred rather than respect.
All our interventions, other than those assisting the UK, US or Australia, have either been at the request of democratic governments or under the UN.
Regards, Greg.P.
A: it's also my history. B: I tried to make it clear earlier that my comments are about Britain's actions. I have every sympathy for the individuals caught up in the terrorism, particularly as I have 4 family members wandering around that region about now. C: If you go blasting the hell out of other people's cities with tonnes of shells why would you be surprised when they explode 40lb of explosives in one of yours? D: if they are terrorists then so are you.
Regards, Greg.P.
Don't worry about it, the whole subject is in bad taste but it's probably better out than in! Then we can get back to trains.
Regards, Greg.P.
Just remember, that would have left our entire coastline open to attack by nuclear submarines and inflatable dingies for the entire duration of your war!!! We did have a third frigate, but the captain wasn't game to take it beyond the harbour entrance due to reliability concerns over the Lucas electrics. ;-)
Regards, Greg.P.
My question is: Why are powerful nations who bombard cities the good guys while the disgruntled little guys who bomb cities are called "terrorists"?
Regards, Greg.P.
At Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:44:41 +0100, message was posted by "John Turner" , including some, all or none of the following:
I'd say not, but my preferred model for change is that which achieved a virtually bloodless handover in South Africa, rather than the model exemplified in Operation Oily Residue.
To prevent rogue states going off and invading anyone they like to further the commercial interests of their leaders we could conceive an international oversight body, which considers the conditions in various countries and approves appropriate action based on criteria like the threats to neighbouring countries.
Indeed. In terms of nuclear weapons, the genie is out of the bottle. The best bet is probably to ensure that governments of all nuclear or potential nuclear powers are integrated into the international community. Embrace and extend, as it were.
Waving big sticks strikes me as a dangerous game when some of them have nuclear warheads.
Guy
"Greg Procter" wrote
That's a very narrow response, but at what stage do you believe there should be intervention in a country where a dictatorial regime is openly killing its citizens and practising genocide?
John.
"Jim Guthrie" wrote
I'm sorry, but I still think it was in extremely bad taste.
John.
"Greg Procter" wrote
So you would happily have left Saddam Hussein to continue with his ethnic cleansing and arbitrary mass-murder of Iraqis?
John.
In message , John Turner writes
But John, the often unknown thing about Iraq, was that it was a secular society, quite similar to the UK. Granted, tribes like the Kurds were looked down upon, but that's no different to the caste system in India, a system many centuries old and still in wide use today, where your status depends on how dark your skin is. Indeed, there was a large Christian community in Iraq, and there still is, the country has its own Anglican Archbishop. But one thing is for certain, Iraqis are NOT safer with us in their country. Since we invaded Iraq the average Iraqi is FIFTY EIGHT times MORE likely to be killed than when Saddam was in power. WE created the current security nightmare in Iraq, WE are responsible for the massive infiltration of Islamic extremists, something which was NOT an issue when Saddam was in power, as both sides hated each other, and there was of course, nothing to be gained by Al Qaeda operating in Iraq. Unlike today. If we really care about humanitarianism, (which I don't think either the US or UK do, except when it meets their own ends), then why oh why oh why have we not intervened in the Sudan? A civil war has been going on there for 30 years, and left 2 million dead. We've done NOTHING there. We also done nothing in the Congo, again, millions dead, Zimbabwe, Mauritania, Uganda, Rwanda, we did NOTHING to help these people.
Don't be so silly, James. It was *nothing* like the UK. The society was secular because Saddam *imposed* secularism (or more accurately Ba'athism) on the country in an attempt to prevent religious leaders from challenging his rule. It should also be noted that Saddam became noticeably more devout in his last five years in power. With the rise in Islamist militancy, he tried to present himself as a holy warrior. His speeches became composed of Islamist rhetoric and he even started to rename his military forces with Islamic names. He was a hypocrite, attempting to manipulate the militants for his own ends and the militants were too blinded by their own hatred to see through him.
Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorist organisation affiliated to Al Qaeda, openly claimed to have been funded by Saddam. The fact that the families of Palestinian suicide bombers gained a pension from Saddam has long been public knowledge. Sadaam's regime supported terrorism - end of story. The available evidence pointing to Saddam's guilt in *directly* supporting Al Qaeda may well be circumstantial and might not stand up in a criminal court, but it would certainly be enough to convict him in a civil suit. The simple fact of the matter is that the coalition countries acted in their own self interest in invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. And I would like to ask, what is wrong with that? I have *no* doubts whatsoever that had the invasion not occurred, then terrorist attacks would have occurred in London two years ago, except they would have been carried out with nerve gas or a radiological device.
And before you come back with that old chestnut about "there were no WMDs found in Iraq", let me point out that there *were* quantities of nerve gas found. Some of it was even used by the "insurgents" against Coalition forces, although it seems that they didn't actually know what they were using. Admittedly there were no huge stocks of battlefield ready nerve gas found, as the media were expecting, but there were appreciable amounts of degraded nerve gas freely available. This may have been useless on the battlefield, but a jam-jar of the stuff poured onto the platform of a London tube station would have caused hundreds of horrific casualties. As far as I am concerned, that was more than enough justification for the invasion.
The second that a Western military force set foot on African soil to attempt to oust a native dictator, every country opposed to the West would be screaming about "Imperialist aggression" and "the return of Colonialism". Robert Mugabe would be the first to cry this and I have no doubts that Thabo Mbeki and Kofi Annan would support him.
You are wrong! We *did* help them. I personally took part in UN peacekeeping efforts in Rwanda. The problem is that these people enjoy killing each other and they don't want to stop.
No explanation is needed. If New Zealand troops are involved they are there for a good reason.
(kim)
No John, bad taste is if I were to ask this group which Railmatch or Precision paint would most closely match the effect of human blood splashes colliding with a tube tunnel lining at several thousand feet per second.
Whereas, *extremely* bad taste would be if I gathered up some body parts and offered them on eBay as "London Underground Souvenirs" *only for you*, and worst of all, not even specified the postage.
For all you know, I had bad taste before the outrage. If I start acting all tasteful now, then I will have changed my way of life and the terrorists will have won. Ne c'est pas?
Cheers, Steve
Because it's the term which causes the least offence to the fewest people in a UK newsgroup.
(kim)
Hi James, a very good analysis, but you don't answer the key question - why didn't you *personally* intervene in these matters? I expect you know how to get on an aeroplane. I mean, who is this "we"? And do "we" intervene or don't "we"? Seems to me like a case of "damned if we do and damned if we don't".
Ultimately, the whole of society has to ask all these questions, as well as : which course of action is most likely to keep the price of petrol down, so that on a sunny day like this, Steve can afford to cruise up and down Wimbledon Broadway in his Merc with the top down, looking and feeling gooood. And not having to think about getting on that tube train tomorrow.
Because feeling goood is just about all that is attainable. All the rest was always so, and always will be. You and I are just cannon fodder in whatever war happens to be going on.
I've spent over 50 years thinking about world issues, and I've come to one firm conclusion: come the year 2012, and the opening day of the Olympics, I plan to spend the day in Hull browsing round John's shop, hopefully well outside of the blast radius of the inevitable nuclear device in London, just like the government will have to be in Gleneagles or somewhere and the Mayor in Singapore.... oh, sorry, wasn't supposed to let that particular cat out of the bag just yet!
Cheers, Steve
"James Christie" wrote
I suppose you could say the same when he gassed the Kurds, but that doesn't excuse his barbaric behaviour.
John.
In message , Steve W writes
I like to think I make a small contribution, not with the Army, but in supporting the RN, as a Merchant Seaman supplying them with fuel and other essentials.
Indeed. I tend to think that in the comfortable country that we live in, we tend not to think as much of those who don't have access to the luxuries we do.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.