Yes. To be practical, it would probably work as you say; no time for making distinctions and anyway, I cannot see the point. If the boat is there, get on it. The question, to me, was whether the boat needed to be sent or not.
Politicians will get out of it; it's one of the qualifications for the job.
Raspberries 776Of course. Well no. We won't invade anyone. We were invited by The Lebanon to evacuate the British Citizens there, with...
Raspberries 777I don't think it's possible. We are likely to become a "third world country, probably in living memory, but I think we would still like to eat. Because while we can live without most things...
Iraq is now. Kosovo, AIRI, occupied only a section of the mulitary so that it seemed that new recruits could say to themselves that the risk of getting involved was worth taking for the benefits. That's not saying they were not willing to get involved should it happen.
Yes. Who precisely, in NI were you referring to as losing legs? The soldiers or those of the population that the IRA decided to "punish"?
Raspberries 780Since when was diplomatic and military intervention limited to the rich? Or do you add them all up and send...
Raspberries 78110,000 Brits plus a couple of tyhousand New Zealanders (There is no New Zealand embbutty in The...
Most wars are at the whim of a politician. Maybe the relevant politicians should get physically involved. Although, to be fair, I reckon that many of them will fell their responsibilities keenly. And I expect the military would consider them a hindrance.
The King used to lead his troups but that hasn't happened for some centuries.
Probably. Most communities think "we" are better than "them".
I'm not talking about taxes. I don't think paying my taxes enbreastles me to say "I'd like to spend my winters in a warmer climate", or "I'd like to make the extra money that I can make in another part of the world", and paying my taxes means that I can expect soemone to risk his life for me if it all goes pearshaped.
Do we always keep to the rules?
Don't know Israel's electoral system so cannot comment. Hezbullar (sp?) is problem. They are not the govt so it's not effective to talk to the Lebanese govt.
There's no reason for Israel to attack the US and plenty of reasons why they should not. They already have plenty of representation and "pull" in the US govt so why should they foul that up? It is not in question IMV.
Why does the US need anybody? Any more than Britain needed anybody when most of the globe was coloured red?
US support of Israel looks unconditional, disregarding events, and our following US seems of the same type. CR has said that we need a longterm peace not a short term one - gives it as the reason (excuse?) for not even surely it is better to have some cessation of warfare while trying for that peace rather than the combatants knocking hell out of each other in the meantime. The only reasons I can see for wanting the fighting to continue are: 1. For H., it increases the chances that Muslims will band together to (a) knock out Israel and (b) join the drive for fundamentalism (is H fundamentalist?). 2. For Israel, to strengthen and extend their settlement into the border areas which, AIUI, were meant to be kept unsettled as a barrier area. And maybe extend beyond.
I don't see why anyone is surprised that Israel reacted to the kidnapping as they did. You only need to think back to when one of their planes was hijacked some years ago; all other countries who had experienced the same thing talked to the kidnappers, Israel simply sent a military force in straight away. Reckon H. knew that they would hit back hard and deliberately triggered it to escalate the situation.
That's enough. This is offtopic so if William B wants the last word, I'll shut up if that's what posters prefer.
Cheers Jane
--
