RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
thanks Sherrigham if I made you smile!;)
now on more serious matters...I am not sure I can go along the "Britain is safe ...it has not been invaded for 1000 years". Won't argue with the very fact but that does not make me feel any safer or happier. Of course, I am not british to start with, then I will not surprise anyone when I remind you that "national cultures" do disappear without rockets and nuclear weapons. Just look at the americanisation of anything that speaks english, the loss of identity in Scotland (not starting an argument here but I have scottish friends and 2 generations ago half of Scotland did speak their language) and in fact the american culture spreading everywhere...we even look like them now.
this is not an anti-US post but just a reminder that "safe waters" makes me smile as something even more radical than Vikings and shiny booted-nazis can convert a whole culture. Of course, there isn't the agression, the destruction. I don't want to equal one with the other.
I guess this is just human...isn't it?
will we all speak Chinese in 100 hundred years?
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
maybe Chinese in a Brooklyn accent.... arrghh!!!
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
human countries (USA against Iran,etc) will be a silly detail in the natural evolution of things.
ORIGINAL: Sherringham
Did like Fadette's description of the US - a silly detail!!! Excellent!
You mean that the US are "human"? :Dor that a war with Iran will be a "silly detail"? :DYes. plenty of black humour there. 😉
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Oh - I read further down in the thread. The threat is not actually nukes but MacDoanalds I guess. Certainly a different thread. As is the subject of the "UK" and whether it should be sub-divided. Having lived 2 years in Edinburgh i know feelings run high there, but again it is as much off-topic as this thread could go...
V xxx
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
But do people survive the MacDonald's experience? I have never had one. Been past the one at Lakeside, and I swear the same people are there 6 months later, preserved in their seats and chewing just chewing.....
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Hi Guys,
I feel that cultures will only accept what they like, whether it’s good for them or not is debateable.
For me (had we stopped it happening) … I woulda missed out on ‘red snapper rice n’ peas’ at west Indian weddings, I would missed my ‘Dub’ years in the basement clubs dancing to original drum n’ bass.
I would missed the Ska era, and Greek plate smashing, stuffed vine leaves, black pudding, etc etc and perhaps people would still be calling my mother’s homeland cooking “stinking” to this day...as opposed to being the biggest selling take-away cuisine in UK that it is now eh…:)
& yeah I eat McDonalds, and kebabs and boy do I miss Wimpy burgers… there ain’t nothing wrong with it… ask yourselves how long it’ll before semi-vegetarians who only feast on dairy products & fish as well as nuts, veg and pulses… get told that they are full of mercury and their bodies don’t like or are reacting badly to the dairy products… there’s even talk already of dairy products contributing to cancer!
Frankly, if you eat it and burn it off, and yet your body likes it… it can't be all bad... can it?
ORIGINAL: venetian
Sheringham, 😀I wouldn't even "go there" on HP if I were you.
I don't recall the specific threads so can't give links, but most peopl on HP are female it seems, and there have been more than one intense thread (one quite recent) which IMO were frankly female-chauvanist, saying that men are responsible for all wars etc. I recall Conspiritualist giving good responses.
I could say more on the subject, but it's too off-topic.
V 😉
It was the “what’s the point of fighting for god” thread in the philosophy forum I think.
Whereit was given as almost fact that women are not violent, do not start wars, that if women were in charge – there would not be any wars… and that the reason that there are wars is effectively to do with societies being patriarchal.
Moreover, any evidence found of violent female behaviour was only to be viewed as at best an exception to the rule and therefore could not possibly count as it is an anathema to the ‘brotherhood’ of womankind.:D
BTW, I noticed that I never managed to mention Grace O’Mally, and yet here was a violent women to be celebrated, but history conspired to write her thoroughly from our memories… totally! I wonder how many other truly great women have been written out of History; and she really was one of the greats, the stuff of legends… any warrior king of any ‘time’ would’ve been proud to achieved all she did as a true warrior, leader, politician and negotiator – both on land and at sea! - Check her out, she'sda nutz...:)
ORIGINAL: Sherringham
Ok the mods can take it out if they want.But no, not men, just the politicians... and these days a handful of those who seem hellbent on destroying us all ,men, women and children...
Exactly Teddy…
"We need a common enemy to unite us."
&
"There is plenty of authority to act. We are trying very hard to have the Security Council one more time affirm that authority. But it's important to know that we believe
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
I thought this thread had probably run its course ... but just heard that today North Korea test-fired seven - not one but seven - missiles. It seems clear to me that they intend to use them.
North Korea is led by a madman, and the situation needs dealing with. And it can be dealt with conventionally - before North Korea go mad and do something crazy.
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
ORIGINAL: Conspiritualist
Interestingly an academic that has no 'real' experience except that she has worked for both Bush senior & junior but did work in-between as a director of "Chevron Oil” (one of the biggest importers of Suadi oil btw) – & so well did she do for them that they named a massive oil tanker after her the "Condoleezza Rice” – which they quickly had changed when she went back to the White House!
Really?? Roger, you are so full of amazing information.
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
can they do that
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Just another note on the North Korean missiles, as I'd only heard the sketchiest news before.
Potentially they could have flown as far as Alaska, so far. Happily their technology seems pretty primitive, and they flew off innacurately all over the place this time. But it's surely a matter of time only until they become more accurate. Since there's still a de facto war with South Korea (no peace treaty was ever signed), South Korea is likely to be a main intended target. But I think one has to suppose that they'll entend their range so as to threaten the USA. At least to threaten so that whatever America tries to do will be weakened through fear - even negotiation.
I think it's interesting that just as this thread was running, North Korea brought the reality of the danger home. I don't think there's any chance we'll see North Korea invaded, nor that the West would use nuclear weapons first. So it looks like a situation that may run and run, with pressure put upon China to try to control this renegade state.
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Yes David, North Korea is the real threat. The bloke in charge is a madman.
Love,
Patsy.
[:-]
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
A TV docu last night figured that pressuring China, who have most influence over N. Korea, is the way to go. But there's no guarantee that will work. South Korea might enter an arms race and we'd end up with a Pakistan-India situation.
There's no huge hurry to act, but one day it may come down to UN-agreed conventional strikes.
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
China invented missiles 3000yrs ago. Britain invented civilian bombing in India between the wars. The Americans got rid of 95% of the native Americans to Genocide. Its all been done before. Over and over again.