| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ This website and forum has been living on borrowed web server time for years. At the end of this month silsden.net in it's present form will cease to exist, BUT there is a new silsden.net in the making, and a new forum, and lots of exciting new things coming to this space. Peter |
back
to Have Your Say !!!! | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 42
Page : 1 2
<< next page next page >>
Author |
Topic : Global Lunacy |
|
| alan |
As we stand by and allow Isreal to bomb the Lebanese from their country our government is contemplating spending up to £25 billion on Trident. Just what kind of legacy are we going to leave our children! |
|
| grandad |
Alan You are doing the same as most of the media, If your home was being destroyed by rockets you would want the government to do all it could to stop it, this is all the israilies are doing, if the leboness stopped the terrorists from trying to destroy their neighbour it would never have started in the first place. |
|
| alan |
"Grandad" like you I had some sympathy with the Israelis way back in 1967. But we have to remember how they occupied Palestine - as terrorists! Murdering British soldiers. Hezbollah are firing rockets at them, but is that any reason to kill innocent civilians? There is no doubt that the response outweighs the cause. Israel is a nuclear power, what happens when their backs are really against the wall? I've seen many conflicts in this area, for once this one really concerns me! |
|
| gazzer |
Hezbollah are Iranian backed and lets not forget they want nuclear tipped rockets that will reach us. We need the Trident as a deterrent.We wouldnt use it first. End of subject |
|
| grandad |
Alan, if someones back is against the wall then they have retreated as far as the can. You can't change history only live and learn from it, as bomber Harris put it in the second world war "they sowed the wind now they will reap the whirlwind". the arabs should leave the isrealis alone and they in turn will be left alone. if not then they decerve whatever they get. |
|
| alan |
£25 billion for a detterent that if ever used by this country will destroy the planet! You're having a laugh "gazzer". And the government have a cheek to critize users of 4 x 4's!!!! I think I'd be a bit peed off if I was a Palestinian and had my land stolen "grandad"! |
|
| gazzer |
You dont understand how a deterrent works.Cant be bothered to go through it all other than to say if we have to use it the planet will already ceased to be |
|
| alan |
Obviously you are the master tactician "gazzer", why don't you enlighten all us lesser mortals? |
|
| grandad |
Gazzer/Alan, We appear to be talking about two different subjects here, One/ whether or not we should have a nuclear deterrent, Two/ whether the Israeli’s have the right to defend themselves against the terrorists who state they must be destroyed. With regard to n0 one there is only a need for one nuclear missile as any more only means overkill, but is even one a deterrent? We had hundreds and it didn’t stop the Argentines from invading the Falkland’s, the real threat to us is guerrilla warfare and you can’t use nukes against that. Has for n0 two if you go along with the idea that the Israeli’s stole the land from the Palestinians and therefore they should leave and give it back to them, then where in the world are you going to put all the Americans that are not Native Red Indians? After all the Yanks stole it from them and you can’t have dual standards |
|
| alan |
One difference though, "grandad" Israel "stole" the land only some sixty years ago and the Palestinians still live in refugee camps. As for Native Americans, yep the same argument! Might the world not be better if they still ran the country! No George Bush, wonderful! |
|
| grandad |
My point is, you can't turn back history, what is; is! you have to live with it. Not kill people in the vain hope you can restore history. The palistinians need not be in refugee camps if they got on with their lives, and worked at making the future better than the past. Or are you of the opinion we in Silsden should start bombing Bradford, because some of us want to go back to having a Silsden Urban District council as we had before 1974? |
|
| alan |
Not a bad idea "grandad"! No doubt there are many in Silsden who'd be happy to fly the planes over Bradford for our independance! Ahhh the days when we had police on the beat! |
|
| wahiba |
Compared with the spelling of Israel and Lebanon global lunacy is a minor problem. How about teaching people to spell! |
|
| alan |
"Wahiba" I'm sure that the recent Palestinians killed by the Israelis weren't bothered by the odd spelling mistakes as the shells hit them! What a silly comment! |
|
| wahiba |
Problems around the world are all based on ignorance. Bad spelling is a demonstration of ignorance. Stamp out ignorance and we stamp out wars, so it is important that ALL ignorance is tackled at source. |
|
| Fred |
wahiba what a load of **** how can you equate bad spelling with ignorance. I suppose you might equate war with George W Bush, not sure it leads back to bad spelling. |
|
| alan |
Fred I wouldn't bother, all you'll get is a smug reply from "wahiba". It's a pity that he/she does not check their own spelling for mistakes on even three letter words - see some of their old posts! |
|
| wahiba |
If bad spelling is not ignorance of one own language, then what is it? Ignorance of basic facts is behind every prejudice. Poor spelling (not hitting the wrong key) suggests a lack of reading and hence an ability to learn. Moving images are not the answer, and I doubt if radio 4 is at the top of a poor spellers listening list. Anyhow, I seem to have a spelling checker with these posts now. Checks as I type. If it is not part of the silsden.net software then it must be part of the new Mozilla Firefox 2. So, if it is not the net software get Firefox 2. By the way, I am male, aged 59. |
|
| alan |
"wahiba" is there one that checks grammar as well? Or is that not a sign of ignorance? Though it was at the grammar school I went too. Hitting the wrong key is not ignorance, rather having large fingers, as I have  Perhaps you might also put me out of my misery and highlight where I may have spelt Lebanon wrong. The nearest I can find is Lebanese, which is, of course, someone who comes from Lebanon. Exactly as an Israeli comes from Israel! |
|
| alan |
By the way "wahiba" lack of respect and consideration for others opinions, views, beliefs, and abilities are probably the biggest cause of wars and strife not ignorance! By the way I listen to Radio 4, obviously their standards are slipping |
|
| janny |
Bet you love the Archers Alan? Getting a bit racey though lately |
|
| alan |
Sorry "janny" but I don't really listen to the Archers much these days. I liked the old Walter Gabriel days and don't go in for this new fangled politically correct storylines that they seem to go in for these days. Oh for the old days when we could express our honest views without fear of being arrested by the politically correct police! |
|
| wahiba |
Lack of respect is due to ignorance of how others will react to ones own behaviour. Must be a US checker, suggested 'behavior', or is my pomposity about to be caught out. |
|
| alan |
Far be it from me to use a word like pomposity "wahiba", but if you feel the need to use it to describe yourself please do so. I know that I would recheck ALL my old posts before I made comments on the quality of others. |
|
| Nuyorican |
War, the expression goes, is a bad business. It's certainly not a good idea if you're a soldier or civilian caught in the middle of one, and it tends to raise havoc with things like domestic spending. But if you are Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, Admiral (ret.) William Crowe Jr., these are "BRILL" days. |
|
| wahiba |
War is only a bad business proposition when badly managed. When managed correctly it brings power, wealth and prosperity to the winner, and in many cases to the loser. WW2 saw the start of our welfare systems, and of our present education system. While they cannot be classified as perfect, they are not a complete disaster. Since WW2 if I am not mistaken the British Military has only had a couple of years or so without military engagement. Economically we seem to be surviving quite well. England has had continuity of statehood for over a thousand years. China is similar, but survived by cutting itself off from the world, hence the great wall of China. As an island nation that was not a choice. Our natural defense is the sea, but it is not perfect. Consequently England, as a nation has adopted a war like stance on the world to survive. In the course of that survival we have seen off attempts for world dominance by Spain, France, Germany and the USSR. Three empires have come and gone (France first, Americas second, the rest third) The last to attempt world hegemony has been the USA, who, thanks to Vietnam and now Iraq have failed miserably. Interestingly through all these time their 'poodle' ally, the UK, has been at their side. With such friends, who needs enemies. England has not survived without alliances. The USA saw us through WWs 1 and 2. Currently with Europe for sound economic reasons. Mind you, we also court the potential powers of the future, China and India. Of course, relative to the world we are becoming a small insignificant power. An island off the coast of Europe. But that is what we have always been. War is not one of mankind's most pleasant activity activities. As a nation we have certainly reduced the need for it by substitution with games. These we know it is only necessary to take part in, not to win. Others do not, so let them. It keeps them from the battlefield. War is an unpleasant business, but a necessary one. It is essential to be good at it. There is no second place in war. A war must be won. If that means supporting a military infrastructure so be it. At the end of the day might is right and keeps the peace. I am glad that we are in the position to point this out to those on this planet who would bid us all to do their will and no other. |
|
| alan |
And spending £25 billion on Trident which is where this thread started? War ain't too good if you are the one that's dead! Pity we don't devout our resources to better ways of supporting the planet and it's inhabitants rather than devising more efficient ways of killing each other. |
|
| wahiba |
I agree. £25billion is a bit OTT. I think the money should be used on developing the HOTOL space plane. That way we would get into space on the cheap, make a lot of money undercutting all the other satellite launchers, start the 4th empire on the moon and Mars and keep a few nukes in orbit just in case anyone wants to argue. |
|
| Nuyorican |
Although I feel it is important to explore our galaxy. I think it is more of a priority to combat issues here on earth such as hunger, disease, the environment and establishing peace with our fellow human-beings. After-all if we ever encountered life somewhere in space look at the world we have to show them |
|
| alan |
IF, and maybe when, we encounter life on another world I think we'd be far too embarrassed to invite them to meet the folks back home! Just think of the introduction to George Bush as an international leader - oh dear!! |
|
| wahiba |
I am always intrigued by the statement that if we did not spend money on, weapons, nuclear power or whatever left wing issue is flavour for the day, then it could be spent on the poor, the third world the hungry etc. No one ever suggests that if we did not spend money on unproductive activities, lawyers, social workers, politicians, consultants (non - medical), dining out, drinking alcohol, driving the car other than to get to work, having a massive choice in entertainment, not wasting money on celebrities...and so on and so forth that maybe these objectives could also be achieved. In truth the resources of this planet are randomly distributed. This means that the life on this planet has to move and adapt to take the best advantage of these resources. Homo Sapiens is just one of the millions of life forms on the planet. It so happens that by a quirk of nature Homo Sapiens operates in a different manner than other animals. Humans have always moved about to take advantage of these resources. At one time this migratory activities took generations, today it can take hours. Poverty is how we see those people who have not gained from this migratory process. Immigrants are just the people who have managed to move to enjoy better resources. To eliminate poverty in the world we need to bring everyone up to the same level of existence that we enjoy in the UK. However, as I understand it, the resources of this planet will not allow this to happen. Therefore if we want to eliminate poverty we either have to: a: Find somewhere else for the burgeoning population of this planet to live. b: Eliminate a large proportion of the population of this planet. It seems to me that we therefore spend our money on a, in the hope we work out how to do it before we resort to b. At the moment b seams more likely, so therefore in the true Darwinian spirit of survival of the fittest we arm ourselves to the teeth so that when Armageddon comes we are the ones left standing at the end of the last battle. |
|
| Nuyorican |
No need for plan A, B The quantity and quality of arable land, water, energy, and biological resources will determine the current and future status of the support services for human life. With the natural resources depleting in various areas so will its population, self regulating. Why not allow the Earth to carry out Darwin’s theory of Evolution for itself. Perhaps the old Trident subs with out the missiles could be used to sink the odd stray immigrant’s boat. |
|
| alan |
Oh dear, this has all got too heavy for me now that "wahiba" is planning world domination from Silsden! |
|
| wahiba |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) Watched the programme on BBC4 last night about the TV series the Survivors. I suppose it could happen. As for world domination, now there is an idea that could be worth pursuing. To be worthwhile I think world genocide first, to make some space. So maybe the defense policy should be to develope a bug to wipe out the human race. Then immunise the UK population against the effects, then, Bobs your Uncle, release it on the rest of the world. The world would be ours. I reckon the 60 odd million from the UK would fit nicely. |
|
| Nuyorican |
Immunise not all of the UKs population, means test first. |
|
| grandad |
Don'y worry about the earth, it will survive, the thing is, it will probably do so without mankind, when we have killed ourselves off it will regenerate itself and go on very well without us, we have only been here for a small fraction of time compared with the earth. |
|
| Replies in this thread : 42
|
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > Have Your Say !!!! > Global Lunacy |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
22/07/2006 : 17:26:52 
03/08/2006 : 08:41:14 
14/11/2006 : 16:12:43 
14/11/2006 : 17:00:22 
14/11/2006 : 19:18:23