Free Republic

Kipling

Possibly. btu the gun ban didnt really get rid of them, they just went underground. Its the 'cool' factor with the knives.
Some kid brings one in, and the rest of his mates do too after that. Get into a fight, which we all do, and the knife is pulled. But then, if you ban knives, then the f***ers will only move onto something like a screwdriver (believe me, thats not a pleasant experience!), or a piece of wood with a nail in it. the point is you cant get rid of violent crime by taking away all of the weapons. There is a root cause to all this, and the more we understand the better we will be.
To those here who think GB is 'doomed', I might say thats a little nihilistic, and if you dont really know much about the problem then you have no authority to comment on it do you????

I'm merely responding to a vicious verbal volley aimed at my country and its servicemen and women. You boys want to gang up and take the chance to dis some 'allies', then go for it. If your opinion of the UK and its peoples is echoed in the majority across the US, then we should start batting for the other side.
And if you cant see the Imperialist tendencies of the US, the PNAC (Rummy, Wolfy, Perley, Kristol(y), Bushy, Condy etc) then I'm not entirely sure you are living on the same planet as I do. Embrace it, its part of the US's development into something more advanced, socially, and then in 100 years time you can look back with a pragmatic air about you (as I have now, cos I'm the man) and say "Damn, that Humanist, he was the man"....

I answer now, but you really are wasting my time in truth. I'm too educated, too clever, too cool and too suave to get into convo's with you.

Peace. Respect. Sympathies to all who fall in Iraq...

Its to one and all really.....


Read Phillip Knightley's book 'The War Correspondent: Heroes and Mythmakers from the Crimea to Iraq'. Very good, about military censorship, and all things journo.
To the person who posted claiming that the embedding of reporters increases the risks to their person.

You are CORRECT.

BUT....

You are wrong to say that journalists 'embed' themselves with terrorists or any other insurgent militia. Embedding is a joint US/UK concept designed after the Falklands War to better manage a media that could expose some hard truths.
Better to have a journo stuck in an allied unit, wearing combat uniforms (which makes them a better target for the enemy, and therefore means he, sorry....or she, becomes more part of the military unit than correspondent) and going on partrol with the unit instead of letting them head off to the desert to find stories of their own (thats how the ITV journo Terry Lloyd was killed, by forces unknown....)

"Have we taken the Iraqi treasury home with us? No. We've pumped in a hundred billion dollars, and counting"

Actually man, yeah you/we all have. US pledge $100 billion dollars on reconstruction etc (by the way, the funds are loands that are to be repaid with Oil from Iraq, thats not aid, its a bridging loan)... In real life less than a fifth of the funds allocated have been spent on the Iraqi people. 150 new medical centres to be opened around Iraq, less than 6 built and best estimate is no more than 20. Schools? Roads? Pipeline? Jobs? Infrastructure? No security, no construction. And all the while a massive building project is taking place inside the Green Zone. Costing billion of dollars, its the new US 'diplomatic mission'. I dont know of any 'diplomatic mission' that needs 8,000 staff...


You're trying to rationalise that because the British have such a bloody and Imperial past, that they somehow deserve what they are getting now?
And you have gone back all the way to the US civil war looking for wrongs done by the British against the world. Ok, I know your history starts around then, but ours goes back thousands. We had been pillaging and doing evil deeds long before your country was invented okay?
I dont want to get into a 'my terrorist attack was bigger than yours' contest, cos thats just cheap man. Just as I wont, and dont wish to, argue over the ratio of dead soldiers. Its as bad to lose one life over an event as thousands, the amounts dont matter. My complaint with your comments, perspective, socio-political thinking, is that you are trying to cheapen British sacrifice by stating that the US lost more soldiers fighting in the two world wars. Well, a world war will generally create a little more carnage than a scuffle in a dusty, neglected part of the world.

As for your comments about US troops being in a position to occupy Europe, much the same as Napoleon years before, you're right. The US could have, didn't and got it right. But the leaders then were vey different to the leaders now. During that period you had a group of leaders who were essentially Wilsonian Isolationists, with a bit of Jacksonian theory thrown in, and so had no need, nor desire, for Empire. I say, thats things are a little different now.

PS: Can you explain why you have a seemingly unending hatred for the us? Have our evil Kings and foul Knights despoiled your back yard in Rhode Island, or Maine, or Kentucky?
You hate the British because we have done what you're doing now. We have been the Imperial aggressor, stolen, looted, and pillaged and have evolved, as a social grouping, beyond that kind of desire...its the Third Way.

A new form of contagious 'Idiocy' was found to be rampant on parts of the Internet, and has infected a number of people, who are now suffering from the advanced stages of muppetness and lameitis.
A source claims the only way to contain the spread of the virus would be to isolate those effected and treat them with some study in International Affairs, Geopolitics and Social Philosophy
Can I call you 'Imperialist, Anti-Anglo, Anti-Everything, Facist country of America', or would you get offended?

Note above comment to the other geezer, and refer it back to yourself.
And the IRA was made all the more difficult to defeat due to the arms (Hey, you said the arms were shoddy, are you that bad at making weapons now boys?)and financing they received from our closest ally, the USA. So cheers for doing your bit in killing British soldiers, we wont forget, nor forgive.
You idiot. We British dont care about 'Empire' anymore. Funnily enough the only nation wno does at the moment is a Republic, in much the same vein as France before Napoleon took over. Comparisons anyone? Emporer Dubya, or Empress Condi....

"Also, don't give too much credit to this puke "journalist" from the defeatist, antiAmerican, antiBush Socialist country of Britain".

I wonder why the ENTIRE world hates your guts when you talk about your allies who have fought and died in the same dirt and sand as your precious Americans as you just did about the British.
Instead of doing the decent thing and commenting on the sorry news that more British soldiers have died supporting YOUR war, you have a go at our Army, our people, our nation and our bravery in the face of the enemy. The nation of Britain has never shirked a fight, against all odds and have never dishonoured the nation when in conflict. They give everything they have, their blood, sweat, tears and when there's nothing left, their lives.
You haven't earned the right to talk about a nation you know nothing about, and disrespect the lives of the soldiers who deserve something more than some xenophobic Anti-Anglo Doodle spewing vast amounts of sewage in his fat wake.

so what will the Israeli's do if the US, Europe et al, dont do what's 'required' so to speak?
I can only hope that they are not daft enough to try to undertake some kind of unilateral action. I think we might have to find some room in the history books for another 'Arab-Israeli War', only this time with far reaching concequences.

"The Brits have not had to deal with Sunnis very much"

Very true, although I doubt much different from Al Sadr and his Iranian mates.

Valid point though.

Haha. I know, terrible isn't it?!!!

I spent some time studying in the US back in 2003. Dunkin' Donuts couldn't understand it either. Kept giving me 'creme'.....

I hope not, that would suck...

Optimistic perhaps.....

Yeah perhaps. I wouldn't bet on it. We have found that having a religion kind of gets in the way of decision making and reasoning, cos the rules that govern you under a religion were written by Joe Bloggs and Sidney Smith. I'm not going to organise my life around what they want me to do. I will use my reasoning to decide the best course of action.
Of course, everyone is entitled to having a religion, but in the end, everyone will see that its not necessary.

"The same British tactics the author espouses were wasted on 30 yrs of warfare against the IRA, despite having a spy in every meeting of the IRA general council.One missile could have saved hundreds of lives."
And make a bunch of Marxist devils into martyrs that creates a thousand new IRA terrorist at the outrage of the incident, and we would still be cleaning up the mess to this day. Instead, they are locked in political discourse where they cant do any more harm. It might not be flash, but its effective.

The original article? Yeah, our press can be a bit like that. You just have to syphon out the buls**t and extrapolate the facts.
US much better at policing than at the start of the war. You cant change an army operating system over a few years, it takes decades. Promising signs.

Wouldn't work. The Arabs dont take milk in thir tea...

I wasn't trying to say there is a 'right' way or a 'wrong' way. Both approaches are valid, but in different context of military conflict.
The US no doubt is about as close to 100% as you can get for the prosecution of War.
The British approach is better suited to a kind of policing operation, once 'major combat operations' are over and done with.
Its a trade off, but I would say a necessary one if we are to get the Iraqi's on board as a nation. This is now a policing role, where 'force' really must be used as a last resort. The faster the Iraqis are on board in heart and mind, then the faster all of our boys and girls can come home. It will save lives, on all sides, in the long run.
Look how long it took the UK army to get over the 'Bloody Sunday' massacre. That was a perfect recruiting tool for the IRA, and we learned that such acts are in the end counter-productive.

I wouldn't worry about it.
The UK gave up religion a long time ago. They all get in the way of free speech and proper democracy. Far better to be a totally secular, politically advanced country. Religions just get in the way of the running of day to day life. And anyway, they are just another form of control orchestrated by wealthy to the poor. People will get it, but not for another 500 years or so. So does that the UK is that far ahead of the times?? Hmmm, we're doing ok then.

Again, its your right to carry a gun. If it makes you feel safer then ok as long as its legal.
If I faced a rapist, mugger, or whatever (as I have), I would trust to my mince pies and beat the crap out of 'em. Some you win, some you lose, but I dont want to kill a person because they want my wallet, or dont like my face.
I would feel uncomfortable knowing that people could be strolling around carrying a loaded, lethal, weapon. Its a status quo enforced by public fear, not confidence.

Oh and to the guy who says its tough on the sporting shooters in the UK. I agree, situation must be rectified.

hmmm...quiet out there....