Wings Over Scotland

And wko created the conditions for these terrorists? And who is the greater terrorist?

its NOT it’s (I don’t like this phone)

They don’t care as long as they are profiting.

unsensibledave, you’re missing the point of the cartoon.

It’s clearly referring to the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima & the fact that nuclear weapons are no defence against terrorism.

It’s nothing to do with the west is bad.

David Smith says:
8 August, 2015 at 7:59 am

They don’t care as long as they are profiting.
Nail on head, David.

Trident is the holy grail of economic imperialism, the ultimate in weapons sales that gives a means of fighting to all conficts. The old ‘divide and rule’ ultimate lie. If we need nukes, we must have an enemy. Well guess what! We don’t believe you. There is no threat that warrants sure a response. It is the ultimate justification for the gun lobby/arms manufacturers. Without these leeches, there would be no conflicts.

Ever since Alex Salmond used the description of “unpardonable folly” when the “west” bombed Belgrade I have forced myself to calculate outcomes.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait I saw the dangers but when Iraq was flattened and could no longer trouble its neighbours so far so good. However Blair and Bush wanted a notch or two on their swords so they reinvaded and we can see the consequent folly.

In none of that was a nuclear deterrant an issue!

Painfully accurate.

Oanybody mak a “sensible dave” filter? Gitsoanmatits sohediz.

There’s possibly a logic in what ‘sensibledave’ is writing. Damned if I know what it is though.

Sensible(?)dave @8.54am
Wow just wow so much shit in such a small paragraph,
where to begin?

NO country attacks another out of sheer malice (generalization I know), its always ALWAYS out of a sense of self preservation, even the Japanese were only (in their view) trying to protect the homeland from western encroachment in the far east in Burma Malaya, Philippines etc, the Germans reacting to a terrible punishment in the treaty of Versailles.

We are ALWAYS right in your world, eh Dave?

Geoff Huijer 9.07

“Given that some people (as pointed out above) will fight to the death and indeed, as we know, some see their own death (even suicide) as desirable I doubt ‘mutually assured destruction’ can therefore be seen as a deterrent.”

… no has one said that nuclear weapons are a defence against terrorism Geoff. They are a deterrent aimed at stopping another World War – and they have been successful for 70 years.

It is the cartoon that attempts to draw the link between an ISIL zealot and nuclear weapons – not me.

Usual war is good propaganda sensibledave, but look at it from the other side of your teamGB rules the waves so lets nuke em bleh.

Last century, Japan and Germany were British empire style wannabes and like you say, look what happened.

Or, imagine you’re a young Afghan and Iraqi and you’re watching the American and British war machine bombing your country back to the stone age for democracy and freedom, mission accomplishing vengeance, oil, you strange UKOK chap that you are.

Empathy sensibledave? or, talk about being shackled to maniacs.

sensibledave got his history lessons from Redneck Camp

Another thing to ponder on. Excellent work point still well made.

I’ve been told the cockroach thing and googled it again this morning. 🙂

PS: As Tony (not Blair) would have said “Well stone me”
————————————————————–After I laid my stones – selected from a nearby pile – I thought how long ago it all seemed. Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Danny Alexander, Douglas Alexander; every sitting Labour and Lib Dem MP in Scotland, except two. Other than Brown and Darling, who were already going, how many could have foreseen that their Westminster careers would be over before a year had passed? That pan-British political parties in Scotland might be finished? I looked at the cairn and understood that it came from that different time.
—————————————————————-
link to archive.is

Timely and right on the money Chris.

Ignoring the ethics of nuclear weapons, the cartoon captures perfectly their uselessness in the current global situation.

We are unlikely to be invaded by another country, and if were invaded are we really saying that our hand is so weak in defence of our own borders that the only play we can make is going ‘all in’ by retaliating with nuclear weapons?

The article on this site link to wingsoverscotland.com goes through this scenario in detail and is well worth a read. I just wonder why the conservatives are not agitating for non renewal of trident but improvement to defence and counter-terrorism?

It is an argument the yes side made… that Scotland was largely undefended, her coastline unpatrolled (by our vessels at least) and the RAF presence is greatly reduced.

The trouble is, for many folk the mere mention of a Scottish Navy or Airforce triggers an attack of the famous cringe.

Listening to the Republican hustings in America, I heard one of the candidates talk about the arms available to DAESH. They have more Humvis than the Iraqi army. They seem to have no difficulty selling oil for arms.

Who is trading with them? Do the CIA, MI6,KGB, Mossad not know what is going on. I bet they do and I bet they could stop it if they wanted.

Ken500

… same questions to you and everyone else Ken

Yazidis Ken? Should we have let them die?

Bosnians Ken? Should we have let them die?

etc, etc

Are you going to tell me what you would have done or are you just going to shout at anyone who actually had to make a decision

Fantasy Land, these are American weapons and can only be fired with US permission, however if the people of England persist with this imperial delusion and are prepared to mortgage the farm to pay for them, on their own head be it, the folly will be entirely theirs and they should start making alternative arrangements to re-house them & move them from Scotland toot-sweet before spending any more money on Faslane.

Seriously, why would you continue to feed him. Let him say his bit then leave well alone. Do not respond, he is purely a wind up merchant. Surely everyone knows this by now.

Sensibledave sounds like a bright bloke, He must be great company!!

sensibledave says: Nukes are good

The USA did not need to use nuclear weapons on Japan to end the second World War.

The were many reasons for using its only 2 weapons – ending the war was not high on the list.

In considering the morality of the “justifiable war” we have a long history of thought on the issue and it has led to conclusions which we ought to consider in this debate.

The Westphalian principles served Europe very well as “deterrent” for many, many years, and they are enshrined in International Law. Since Blair and Bush, certainly, and arguably since Thatcher and Reagan, those principles have been steadily undermined. But not overtly through a rerun of the debate and a reasoned demonstration that the doctrine is wrong or no longer appropriate. Rather we have the usual distortions of the arguments and the appeals to emotion, which war mongers always deploy when softening their population up to accept war and the profits which attend it.

So what, exactly, has changed which renders Westphalia redundant? What has changed which makes it now right to intervene in civil and religious wars?

Europe suffered from those wars for centuries, and Westphalia put a stop to that. It is not my view that we are now more civilised and so the necessary evil that entails need no longer be tolerated in the wider interest. Nor do I think that these evil islamists are any different from those evil catholics/ protestants in Europe before Westphalia was accepted. What have they done which is worse than the genocide of the Cathars? What more chilling stance than “burn them all: God will know his own?”

I am fed up with this double standard, and fed up with the complacency which takes the positive ( though sometimes very distasteful) outcomes of Westphalia for granted and assumes that if we abandon the doctrine we will get different results.

I am appalled by the fact that the nuclear powers are in perpetual breach of the non proliferation treaty, and that the only part of that treaty which is “honoured” is the part that says that countries which do not have such weapons should be stopped from acquiring them: why is that part sacred when the part which says that those who have them should get rid of them is ignored?

If mutually assured destruction is really a deterrrent then why do we oppose other states acquiring nuclear weapons: if all are deterred that is a good thing, right? And only one country has used those things, I notice. Who needs deterring?

Hiroshima/Nagasaki are justified by an assertion that the bomb saved lives by stopping the war: it won’t do. It is not evidenced, but even if it was true, it won’t do. For these are weapons deliberately used on a civilian population without even the current cynical pretense that such consequences are never meant: are “collateral damage”. Hiroshima was not like that at all: it was an atrocity and it is not a matter of numbers alone. If that argument succeeds then so does deployment of chemical and germ weapons any time it will subdue the opposition. Or we think they might

To be sure it is arguable that the “laws of war” are meaningless and that if a war is in progress then any and all means are justifiable so long as they make victory more likely. And the “laws of war” are often breached in conflict, as we all know. But they are not there for nothing: and they save many more lives than does “deterrence”

The illogicality at the core of current western policy lies there: we have gradually and covertly abandoned the underpinning morality which led to Westphalia and the Geneva convention and all the rest of the features which identify “justified” war. But we are appalled at the fact that the opposition have recognised that and acted on it. That is the primary objection to the actions of “terrorists” in my view: that they do not subscribe to the international law of war. But our leaders no longer even pay lip service to those laws. They might have reopened the debate about what those laws should be, or even if they should exist: and they might have a case. Instead they have just done it: and Blair, at least, did it on the basis that he is a “sincere” kind of guy with good instincts. Well who isn’t in their own head? That is no basis for civilisation, and it never has been. We have known this for centuries.

The argument that the “evil west” is responsible for much of this is a strong one: but it is not strong for small scale or even large scale particular actions and invasions: they are a consequence of the abandonment of those international treaties and conventions, not a cause. Europe developed that body of law, and deserves some credit for that (even while recognising that they never held securely in face of vested interest): but equally the West deserves censure for its ignorant abandonment of hard learned lessons of history which have served us very well

As ever with the right, they call themselves conservative and point to their disney version of history in support of that self perception. In reality they have very little understanding of history, but a deal of understanding of a feudal “tradition” with no moral underpinning at all, beyond might is right and profit is king. As with the welfare state, so with war.

@sensibledave says: 8 August, 2015 at 8:54 am:

“Why did we end up with nuclear weapons? Because a bunch of German and Japanese loonies decided that they wanted to impose their rule on the world.”

Pish! We(?) ended up with nuclear weapons only because some brave civilian resistance operatives and some Mosquito Crews managed to delay the German development long enough to allow the Allies, (More correctly their associate Allies), to get, “Atom Bombs”, first.

You really need to free yourself from the Establishments propaganda, Dave. You will feel more free, and cleaner, for making the effort. Here’s the truth : –

The Allies of World War II, were the countries that opposed the Axis powers in 1939. The Allies sought to curb the march of, “The Axis”, (German, Japanese and Italian), aggressors.

On 1 September 1939 these consisted of France, Poland and Great Britain. They were soon joined by the British Commonwealth of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, British India and South Africa, et al.

Poland then became a minor factor after defeat in 1939; France also became a minor factor after its defeat in 1940.

After first cooperating with Germany in partitioning Poland, and remaining neutral in the Allied-Axis conflict, the Soviet Union then joined the Allies in June 1941 but only after being invaded by Germany.

The USA were only associate Allies, providing, (to get themselves out of the Great Depression), war material and money. The USA only reluctantly joined as full Allies in December 1941, and this only after the Japanese attacked Pearl “Harbor”, and Hitler declaring war on the USA just some days later.

As of 1942, the “Big Three” leaders of Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States controlled Allied policy, (relations between Britain and the U.S. were especially close). China, (who had already been officially at war with Japan since 1937), officially joined the Allies in 1941 and, “The Big Three”, and China were referred to as a “trusteeship of the powerful”, became recognized as the Allied “Big Four” in a Declaration by United Nations. (Later the “Four Policemen” of “United Nations” for the Allies.

Other key Allies were the Netherlands and Yugoslavia as well as Free France and there were numerous others. Together they called themselves the, “United Nations”, and in 1945, they created the modern UN.

Nuclear weapons may well have stopped another “outright ” world war,but they have not prevented conflict all over the world. Battles rage North,South,East and West on the planet.
They have not prevented war,but rather changed the theatres of operation where war is conducted,and the methodology of that conflict.

I would imagine the numbers killed in one conflict or another since the introduction of the nuclear bomb era would still be very substantial,even though the bomb was available to “prevent” this happening.

The bomb is not a deterrant to conflict,but has become a big stick with which to threaten those who oppose your dictates.
I do feel pity for those who think that somehow it brings peace to the world.

Germany was not allowed to re-arm after the 11WW. The UK has spent the equivalent of £40Billion a year on Defence (Attack) £2800Billion. Germany has invested in it’s economy. The £Billions of resources that have been illegally and secretly taken from Scotland by the Westminster criminals. Hidden under the Official Secrets Act.

Great cartoon. Says it all. Says it all to those who have the wit to listen.

When it comes to established history, I am a complete sceptic. The official story should always be considered suspect at best.

Example already referred to. Japan. The UK militarised Japan to gain a loyal ally in Asia. WW1 and Japan played a huge role protecting UK shipping in the Paciifc and Indian Oceans freeing UK major ships for closer to home. Troops ships from Australia would be protected by Japanese warships. Japan operated out of Singapore. The UK even used Japanese marines to suppress rebellion among Indian troops.

After WW1 the UK gave Japan all the technology needed to build aircraft carriers and master operating seaborne aircraft. The first landing/takeoff from a Japanese carrier was by an RAF pilot on secondment.

As a parallel consider Sadam Hussain. Our man in the Middle East to counter Iran. Or, the way the West stirred Islamic fundamentalism to counter the Russians in Afghanistan.

The lesson I take from history is that if you interfere outside your own immediate geographical zone, the outcome will never be what you expect and never for the better.

A@ all: sensibledave has his answer but, as ever, he does not even realise he has been answered: or he ignores the fact that he has been answered. He is a troll: ignore

Bob Mack 10:55 am

You wrote: “Nuclear weapons may well have stopped another “outright ” world war,but they have not prevented conflict all over the world. Battles rage North,South,East and West on the planet. They have not prevented war,but rather changed the theatres of operation where war is conducted,and the methodology of that conflict.”

You are nearly there Bob. A) The nuclear weapon exists to deter the likes of Russia, China, etc from starting something with the “west”.

B) They do not exist to solve issues in Bosnia, or Kuwait or Syria or Afganistan

Each part of our armed forces armoury is designed to deal with a particular type of threat in a particular type of theatre. So, rather than using Land Rovers to track Russian Submarines – we use more appropriate methods. Similarly, submarines have proved inept at getting about chasing the Taliban in the hills of Afganistan.

You know this Bob. Why are you pretending you don’t?

Then you wrote: “The bomb is not a deterrent to conflict,but has become a big stick with which to threaten those who oppose your dictates.”

Simple question for you Bob. Who have we threatened, when and under what circumstances?

O/T to ask that you celebrate with me the 21st birthday of a remarkable young man, Jonathan Fisher, aka the Bold Joff. Against the odds we’re here to say I never want bombs held or used in his name.

Bairns before bombs every time.

link to maycontaintwopercentowl.wordpress.com

Fiona 11:09 am

“sensibledave has his answer but, as ever, he does not even realise he has been answered: or he ignores the fact that he has been answered. He is a troll: ignore”

No Fiona, I don’t have an answer from anyone yet. I have insults, waffle and tosh and fake moral high ground being taken by many – but, as is so often the case – no actual answers to real world dialemmas.

The Yazidis Fiona? – Let them die or bomb ISIL?

… and the Troll thing Fiona? Really?

sensibledave @ 8 August, 2015 at 11:08 am

You could use the same argument for any part of the world where similar atrocities are occurring.

The question you need to ask is why was there so much media attention to the Yazidis when there was far worse atrocities throughout that particular conflict and in other parts of the world at the same time?

Nobody knows the answer without going into conspiracy theories but it is telling that a Tunisian government official says it is the British governments responsibility to deal with the Deash because they created the conditions from them to exist by establishing the region. With them destabilizing the region it gives them,the US and other pro-US powers a perfect excuse for a continued military presence there for the foreseeable future as well as keeping Russia’s and China’s influence to a minimum.

It was one of the answers that dismayed me the most when I spoke to certain people before the referendum and asked them to justify Trident they would say we need it to stop the Russians invading!!

Well, Robert P may correct me here, since the Kingdom of Scotland was first recorded as a united country the only country that has invaded and attacked us is our better together neighbour to the south.

And also it was the UN who intervened in the Balkans with a clear mandate but Iraq the actual root of the current problems was not a UN mandated invasion it was a big fucking lie like the big fucking lie that our govts are the good guys

The great delusion:

Men who claim stockpiling weapons of the most terrify and lasting kind ensure against wars and attempts at genocide the world over are usually held fast in straight jackets or are politicians.

And on 9/11:

With the greatest concentration of weapons of mass destruction to protect its population the world has ever known, the USA was outwitted by a few men with penknives and a pilot’s licence.

Better than me said:

“War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” Bertrand Russell

sensibledave may or may not be a troll, however, he falls into the trap that it is his/her job to provide solutions to the worlds problems and that is what fools do.

‘Fools rush in’ being my rationale – I have no evidence for this other than hearsay, but it is an old saying which others may have heard. Actually, I think the great coward John Wayne may even have said it in a movie, anyway, I digress. If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll….it probably is a troll.

I am a complete and unashamed conspiracy theorist (not unlike the US/UK government) so maybe sensibledave should go and have a wee coffee in the cheap seats at GCHQ.

FFS not so sensible Dave, just step away from the keyboard.It’s embarrassing.

@ Sensibledave. Imagine if, during any of the European conflicts, technologically and militarily superior Islamic forces with their own agenda had stepped in.

Use of their military superiority hammers the native tribes into unstable submission. Following this they then meddle in European politics, before asset stripping, with the aid of a few local placemen.

How would Europeans have reacted? Would they be thankful? Would the tensions in Europe have been alleviated? Would they have found alternative methods of striking back?

A simplistic argument, but the consequences would have undoubtedly been just as long term and messy.

@One_Scot says: 8 August, 2015 at 10:19 am:

” .. he is purely a wind up merchant. Surely everyone knows this by now.”

Is he though? He seems more like a paid for member of the so called 77 Brigade expressly set-up to do exactly what the brainless numptie is attempting to do.

That is to blindly propagate the Establishment’s propaganda upon those the corrupt Establishment perceives as being, “Insurgents”.

What these brainless idiots fail to comprehend is that the democratically elected majority government of Scotland are now independence supporters and thus the truth is the, “Insurgents”, are, by definition, the United Kingdom’s corrupt Establishment.

Dictionary Definition of Insurgent = “a person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary”.

Thanks Sensible Dave.
You stimulate historical accuracy from the likes of the excellent Taranaich and Robert Peffers, both of whom know their history.

Well as we all know Trident can’t detect terrorists (but will probably attract them) nor does it seem to act as a deterrent as an example it didn’t stop the Argentinians from invading the Falklands.

Three countries of 28 in NATO have nuclear weapons one being the expendable numptified Scotlandshire. They can’t be relocated to any other site in the UK for a number of reasons and Gibraltar (and Spain close by) told the MoD in January ‘Not on our soil. Take a hike.’

Around ten countries of over 190 Worldwide have nuclear weapons. One hundred and eighty or so don’t seem to need them and are doing their utmost to get the 9/10 warmongers to give them up. Why won’t they? Is the UK as an example more concerned with holding onto its seat on the UN Security Council ….. hanging onto the GREAT British days of yore.

Tridents predecessor was dropped on Hiroshoma and Nagasaki (and a third which has been covered up) in August 1945 even although the Japanese had made overtures to surrender from January 1945 outlining their proposals which were exactly what was accepted after the dropping of bombs on civilians.

‘Great Britain’ has done untold damage Worldwide by, in the main, invading over 80% of countries on the planet for no other reason that to rob them of resources …… and often ensuring that one section of society was at the others throat before leaving which has continued over decades to cause disruption. Distance meant that the disruption and strife abroad didn’t affect ‘us’ but the situation has changed with the chickens coming home to roost.

Now we have Syria. Check out who had been meddling there for quite some time before the Daesh situation. Who has been supplying arms to opposing sides, who actually used chemical weapons on civilians and the real reason behind the US and the UK being involved and it ain’t Daesh.

“BBC completely ignored 5 by election results. Poss not headline stuff being a summer local council poll with low turn-out, but even the minimal duty of a public broadcaster means they should be covered if only for the record.”

They’ve gone big with this though.

link to bbc.co.uk

Or just another British media day of sensibleUKOKdave style, you’re just a too stupid, small, poor British region but big enough to use as our nuclear weapons dump etc. So shutup and pretend the bomb keeps you safe, annoying silly Scottish types.

Fiona @ 8 August, 2015 at 1:01 pm

Fair points but there is the possibility that the purpose of paid trolls on sites could also be targeted not on informed members participating on the site but on casual lurkers who do not actively participate and may not be as informed.

For a casual reader, it is possible to miss the many good BTL comments that compliments the article if it is flooded with ‘white noise’ of pointless comments like those of sensibledave as well as having doubts about these goood BTL comments when encountering large amounts of ad hominem/poisoning the well fallacious ones.

They create a dessert and they call it peace…

Look at the barbarians, they’re raping, pillaging, chopping off heads, those poor women and children, we must do something,

Yes lets. I know, lets drop bombs on them.

Who the women and children?

No the barbarians.

But, but… won’t the bombs land on the women and children too?

Um, not initially. At the start we’ll bomb the barbarian in his camp, but then when he takes refuge in the towns and cities (and keeps raping and pillaging) we’ll keep dropping bombs there, that’s when the women and children will get it, and if they survive, they’ll have no homes, water, schools, hospitals, etc, but hey. At least we’ll be responding to inhumanity.

And then, within that environment, of kill or be killed, the other side will need guns and weapons, so we can sell them those. Of course by this time, they’ll have been brutalised and with no schooling, etc, they’ll likely be brutalisers too (in fact rumours are they’re now engaging in a bit of rape, pillaging and head chopping), but hey, they’ll be grateful to us yes, cause we dropped bombs on them, to help.

Of course by now their country will be at civil war, totally unmanageable, and those with a little bit of control will be desperate for money – for more weapons – think of the cheap oil we can buy off them through the back door, not to mention the profits we can make through the arms trade. Oops did I say that out loud?

And then, when the inevitable ‘swarm’ of refugees comes heading toward our country, we can blame them for all the austerity troubles here. Fantastic.

Oh, and since the troubles will still be on going, if the home grown electorate start getting a bit wise, we can send in our troops. No criticism then, it would be disloyal to our brave soldiers, serving their country.

And what’s even better, is the home grown electorate will be so worried about it, they won’t notice as we carpet bag all the institutes they’ve built up over the years to make life a bit decent – oh, like a health service for example.

And in the process, we’ll keep our poor areas poor, and make them a bit poorer, excellent recruiting grounds for soldiers, think of the flags we’ll sell.

Only now, some of those in that far away country are seeing the oil being sold out the back door on the qt, seeing the psychos from all countries gather and do deals to perpetually undermine, schooling, jobs, hospitals etc, and they’re getting pissed off, so pissed off in fact that some of them get radicalised and commit… terrorism, in our home land. Such ingratitude, but hey, it does mean we can pass any law we like through parliament without scrutiny. Every cloud.

And round and round it goes. Best description of war and the army I heard recently was in the Film ’71 ‘posh c’nts, getting thick cnts, to kill poor cnts’.

So sensible dave – I actually think your question was valid, and fundamental – and here is your answer, unfortunately not in a yes/no form – armed intervention as proposed by the Carpetbaggers is likely/intended to add to the atrocities.

What should we do? Get educated, get others educated, get Blair in the Hague, protect our NHS, stand up for our soldiers – not to be sent into illegal wars – stand up against the racism about refugees, the list goes on, but always the default position – one little bit of decency at a time. This is not ‘doing’ nothing.

Best wishes to all.

Well said, Daisy Walker!

@Daisy Walker

I like that!

@ Daisy at 1:45pm

BRILLIANT, insightful post Daisy. Just about sums it up from beginning to end and one wonders why so many others can’t seem to see what’s going on. Let’s hope that your comments will really help to enlighten the confused, ignorant, brainwashed and so on …

@sensibledave –

TBH, I quite enjoy reading your posts at times, especially when you turn on the faux charm with other Wingers and attempt to have banter with ‘Grousey’ and ‘Heedy’.

But then you go and make a total helmet of yourself.

Please make some effort to address some of the excellent comments above, especially those by Fiona (10.45), Daisy Walker (1.35) and Rob James (2.01).

P.S. @Fiona, I can’t find a source for this, but it’s always been my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected for bombing because they are situated on unusually flat land (for Japan) and this would make assessment of the blast effects easier. The civilian populations were an important part of the ‘experiment’, and their evacuation would’ve ‘cost’ the U.S. military priceless data they couldn’t hope to gain otherwise.

@Daisy

Well said.

Ian: “The civilian populations were an important part of the [Hiroshima and Nagasaki] ‘experiment’”

The most powerful nation is not necessarily the one that holds the most weapons of instant death, though the USA has that dubious distinction.

The key factor is which nation is prepared to use them to affect control over all other nations by fear; and the USA exercised that doctrine first.

The way I see it

I am sick of humanity, I am sick of religeon, I am sick of wars, I am sick of hearing about countries invading other countries and imposing their will on the people of that particular nation.

I am talking about the “British” Empire that invaded India, Pakistan, various nations in Asia, middle east and all those African countries.

I am talking about the French who also invaded African Countries.

I am talking about the Dutch that invaded African Countries and some in Asia

I am talking about the Spanish that invaded South America.

I am talking about the Portuguese that invaded South America.

I am talking about the Catholic religeon that put people to the sword to convert to the Catholism faith in South America.

I am talking about the Protestant Catholics that slaughtered Roman Catholics and treated them as 2nd class citizens in the UK.

I am talking about the Catholic religeon that tried to convert musliums to the Christian faith

Can anyone tell me if any fuckin South American country that has successfully invaded an European nation?

Can anyone tell me if any African nation successfully invaded an European Nation?

Why just we just blow up the entire world and let that be the end of it.

Craig says:
8 August, 2015 at 4:09 pm

“The way I see it”

Craig, pretty much spot on sir.

@sensibledave
Re the Yazidis, would they not have been safer had we not removed Saddam?

Yes Saddam was a monster, but in many ways a monster of the West’s making.
We encouraged and armed him to go to war with Iran (the gassing of the Kurds was another result of this war), because the West has taken sides with Sunni Saudi Arabia against Shia Iran.

Craig,

“I am sick of humanity, I am sick of religeon, I am sick of wars, I am sick of hearing about countries invading other countries and imposing their will on the people of that particular nation.”

You have reason to be.

Selfishness is at the core of human nature and it is selfishness which is responsible for creating the state of affairs we live in.

Lead a “Spartan” life, don’t feed the conglomerates.

The more we feed them because of our selfishness (consumerism), the more powerful bullies they become.

If we all curtailed our rampant consumerism, we would soon bring big business down to its knees.

Hi Croompenstein.

That’s spooky! I just recently read a book which uses the situation in Poland as its central background plot.

It’s worth a read; fiction(?) based on factual events. Most of the story is set at the Yalta conference. It’s called, “Churchill’s Triumph”, by Michael Dobbs.
ISBN 0 7553 2680 6 (hardback)
ISBN 0 7553 2681 4 (paperback)

Britain has been aerial bombing in the Middle-East ever since it was invented. The world’s first aerial gassing of civilians took place in Iraq by British planes.

Keaton, to be specific:

51.3% of Scots voted for explicitly anti-nuclear parties (SNP, Greens, SSP)

24.3% of Scots voted for a party that promotes the ideal of unilateral nuclear disarmament in rhetoric, if not in practice, and with a number of rebel MPs who voted against renewal (New Labour: around 8 of the 40 2010 Labour MPs were anti-trident, or about 20%)

7.5% of Scots voted for a party that wants to reduce the number of nuclear patrols and the overall stockpile, stopping short of complete disarmament (Lib Dems)

Which leaves…

16.5% of Scots voting for parties who want to continue the UK’s nuclear deterrent on the current trajectory (Conservatives, UKIP)

Whichever way you look at it, 51.3% to 58.8% want to see a reduced or completely abolished nuclear deterrent, while another 24.3% voted for a party which has a significant number of abolitionists – including the sole Scottish MP, who says he’d vote against Trident renewal.

So yes, most people in Scotland did vote for anti-nuclear parties.

All

Weekend commitments of work and magnificent sport at the Emirates yesterday meant that I was unable to follow through on the debate above.

Whilst this is probably a dead thread, given so many of the comments, I thought I would write a general response.

The point being addressed by me was the theme that all the world’s ills are entirely as a result of our foreign policy. Clearly, our imperial past is responsible for creating many situations that would not be acceptable today and have certainly caused conflicts subsequently.

However, we have to deal with issues and events that we face today based upon what we believe is right today – and that was the point that I was trying to make -and that so many of you simply refused to respond to.

The examples of the Yazidis, libyans, Bosnians etc are examples of where british forces have been sent into areas that geographically have nothing to do with us.

Despite the protestations of many above, very few of you (except Heedy!) actually addressed my questions. The questions are important because all those situations are part of meme that argues we are still imperialists getting involved in situations that end up with no solutions and, indeed, make matters worse.

As you all well know, I was arguing that situations like the Yazidis, Libyans and Bosnians are, of course very complicated – but sometimes they can be distilled down to being very simple.

To me, it is inconceivable that if we become aware of a situation where 10,000 Yazidis (or indeed any innocents) are facing certain death on a mountain top at the hands of barbaric forces, and we are in a position to prevent the murder – that we should do nothing? We had the forces and weapons available to stop the slaughter, and in the end, that becomes the main thing that matters. Same for the Libyans, Bosnians and Kuwaities.

If to some, that is interpreted as meaning that all we have done is created another example of western imperialism and created another faction that hates us – then so be it. There is little I can say to them other than shame on you.

Does that mean that I was in favour of the second Iraq war? No.

One of the things that frustrates me though is the “absolute certainty” of some of the critics of each action. The second Iraq war is a good example. Those of against that second war have every right to argue why we were against it. However, we simply cannot claim that 100,000s of people were killed as a direct result of our actions and not consider what we think would have happened and how many would have been killed or what other wars may have been started had we not got involved a second time. Saddam Hussain would have still been in charge and none of us know what disasters he would have provoked.

We in the West simply do not understand a mindset where one muslim sect sets about another muslim sect – simply because they believe that their version of Islam is the right one. Whilst that mindset continues there will, doubtless, be situations in the future where “innocents” face slaughter unless someone decides to intervene on their behalf. I truly hope that our government (whoever that is) has the guts to still do what is right – regardless of how some may choose to interpret an intervention or argue that we might make more enemies as a result.

The nuclear deterrent has been discussed ad nauseum . Again, I accept that many will argue that there is no problem to which Trident is the solution. They will argue, again with absolute certainty, that our nuclear weapons have had no impact whatsoever, for example, on Russian and Chinese “foreign policy” over the last 70 years. I disagree.

In reality though, none of us “know”. We do know that there hasn’t been a world war for 70 years though.

your worried about the wrong thing. Global warming is going to cause scarcities and hungry and thirsty people are desperate. The middle east currently does not have enough water as it is. Iran has nuclear weapons. What do desperate people do? They do crazy things. We only need 100 of the current nuclear stockpiles to be fired to ensure that as a race we do not survive. Do you think desperate people won’t take us with them? Personally I think they will be willing. Even if it’s not the middle east it may well be China, India, or Pakistan. We are headed towards nuclear war and i don’t think mutual assured destruction will be enough to stop it.