Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Why doesn't London just abandon the North to the desperate anarchy which is its natural state ?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 335 posts in this discussion
Posted on 8 May 2012, 15:10:02 BST
easytiger says:
"Left" obviously.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012, 15:48:10 BST
Charlieost says:
Easy for you to say tiger but has it occured to you that in the future right and left politics could become irrlevant. As populations grow and automation increases there will be more people looking for less work. Actually lets say that even now there are more people looking for fewer and fewer jobs. So whether a goverment is left or right inclined or centreist as most goverments in Europe are unemployment will increase as promises of full employment are unachievable.

So are the not working left out of society or encouraged and funded to be part of a community seems more important than this left/right divide. And if it is insisted upon then which side is going to make it likely that more citizans have a stake in society and therefore cause less social disruption? Surely that is more important than dogma and flag waving?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012, 15:52:08 BST
Well said charlie, but few people care about the future, this is blatantly obvious judging by the state of our youth as a whole. End in tears it will.

Posted on 8 May 2012, 15:57:37 BST
Fopiterole says:
Spelling is more important than Japna.

Fopiterole.
combine fiction with fact in boundary-pushing style...

Posted on 8 May 2012, 16:00:01 BST
easytiger says:
Yes, well said. However you miss the point slightly, which was that if someone can spout absurdities and sound convincing enough he'll have people with him and against him. Dangerous that.
I appreciate also the dangers of short-termism;being the only Englishman working on the Olympic Park at one point was an eye-opener.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012, 19:42:05 BST
gille liath says:
Got a choice of several there, really...

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012, 19:52:57 BST
Spin says:
David: The US did not have to drop the bomb. To end the war with Japan all the US had to do was call on the other western nations who surrounded Japan in the Orient. As for your question "Where is the evidence the US wished to secure safety anf Freedom for the world", that is my point. It was, and still is, US propoganda, fed even to their own citizens, intended to justify their capitalist invasion of other nations. The West always smirked at images of the USSr which showed the Soviet flag on every corner...Even today, the US is plastered in the Stars and Stripes. If you want to believe the western account of history and its interpretation, go ahead. I expect nothing less from a society who have a monopoly on truth.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012, 21:51:21 BST
Haha, nicely put - it seems that the logical extension of neo-liberal politics and economics is just to have a country called 'The Square Mile'...

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012, 22:03:06 BST
Defenceman says:
Spin,

'The US did not have to drop the bomb.'

Quite right. They could have fought their way to Tokyo, with huge losses of life or they could have done what they did. In my view they did what was necessary, subject to my earlier caveat.

'To end the war with Japan all the US had to do was call on the other western nations who surrounded Japan in the Orient'

Ho, ho, you are joking aren't you? You think this would have made any difference? How long does it take the UN to sort anything nowadays? Applied to Syria, your policy seems to be working really well - not.

'As for your question "Where is the evidence the US wished to secure safety anf Freedom for the world", that is my point.'

You stating this doesn't make it true - merely your own opinion, which doesn't count as evidence.

'It was, and still is, US propoganda, fed even to their own citizens, intended to justify their capitalist invasion of other nations.'

The Japanes attack on Pearl Harbour was scarcely propaganda. The US really didn't need to fire up it's own citizens after that, so your comment has no basis in the world as it was. In any case, the whole point of the use of the A bomb was that the US didn't then invade Japan - this rather negates your comment doesn't it?

'The West always smirked at images of the USSr which showed the Soviet flag on every corner...Even today, the US is plastered in the Stars and Stripes.'

I don't recall anybody smirking at the USSR flag, so I don't know where you got this weird idea from. As for the US flag, well they have a good deal of pride in their country, so they salute their flag - so what? We in the UK don't. What do you seriously think this proves?

'If you want to believe the western account of history and its interpretation, go ahead. I expect nothing less from a society who have a monopoly on truth.'

Victors always write history from their own perspective. However, there is plenty of objective history out there which attempts to get to the truth of events and I have no reason to doubt the basic history of WW2 and the Japanese part in it. The Japanese themselves are very good at airbrushing out their vile behaviour, so I don't think this is something confined to your idealised 'west'.

Posted on 8 May 2012, 22:07:01 BST
Charlieost says:
Goverments consist of cowards. Would anyone dream that Blair would send troops into Afghanistan or Iraq if his prescious son was likely to end up there. No it is other peoples sons and daughters who get sent to die for another mad mans foolish mistake. And that is what politics is all about, one dumb mistake after another. And then off they go with their pensions and directorships leaving chaos behind them.

21st century schizoid politicians. The problem, not the solution.

Posted on 8 May 2012, 22:17:38 BST
Spin says:
The cowards are those who vote for such fools..

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012, 22:46:10 BST
Alan Kershaw says:
The US didn't use its monopoly on nuclear weapons to enslave the rest of the world. It did spend a fortune on post-war reconstruciton in Europe and Japan. Before the Second World war ended it was clear that the Soviet Union was carving out an area it would control after the war. Possibly one reason why the US wouldn't have wanted them involved in Japan?

Two atomic bombs caused a fraction of the casualties that conventional bombing had done: the first night they bombed Tokyo with incendiaries, fifty square miles was on fire at the same time. An invasion may have led to the near extinction of the Japanese.

The Cold War more or less forced the USA to persist with the decent values they fought for in World War Two and to maintain a freer society than those in the Soviet Bloc. Progress on Civil Rights and winning the Space Race symbolised what was good about the US. The Vietnam war and Watergate didn't...

...although even Nixon seems like a heroic figure when you compare the US then to what it has become since Americans elected Ronald Reagan and the West gave up on any concept of moral authority.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012, 13:39:58 BST
Mr B Tonks says:
spend a fortune on post-war reconstruction?
that money had to be paid back with interest by all the European nations to America,
lend lease was what broke Britain and resulted in America coming out of the war better off,
it was in America's self interest to enter the Second World War to make sure they could influence future events in Europe as they realised that rapidly advancing technology in warfare was making the concept of their civilian population being immune from the effects of warfare obsolete,
to think of America as having an agenda of decent values is laughable,
their degradation of blacks and native Indians in the Southern states especially, would make anyone wonder how they could take the moral high ground,
furthermore their occupation of Greenland and Iceland (although the British invaded Iceland first) against the wishes of their elected goverments when America did enter the war is always presented as though they were a benevolent force of good rather than an occupying force,
history of course is full of similiar scenarios up to the present day of America entering a country to supposedly help an incumbent goverment when really it is an invasion to secure America's interests,

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012, 14:37:25 BST
Last edited by the author on 9 May 2012, 14:38:20 BST
Charlieost says:
In Ireland at the moment it is better the fools we know than the fools we don't know. Still makes them cowards and compromisers.

Posted on 9 May 2012, 14:47:01 BST
easytiger says:
Well if securing US interests was a factor in ending WW2 I don't really mind. The results of the 80% repayable Marshall Plan weren't too bad either:67yrs of western european peace.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012, 14:51:51 BST
LOL, this became US policy only under Truman, USA was isolationist before WW2 and only sought to end the war with Japan, they had no idea what a probelm the USSR would be for them, Churchill tried to warn them, but got nowhere, Under Truman, they started this policy which continues today , so your both right and very wrong

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012, 14:59:56 BST
I think Spin is more than a little Commie

We should call him spinovski

But also bear in mind Spinovski, that US was dead against entering WW2, FDR won his election with the campaign promise of not sending your biys to die in foreign lands.

If the attack on pearl harbour had not come, US would not have interfered initially and Kennedy (Snr) would have probably got the presidency at the next election, since he was for leaving Adolf alone, (Not a sympathiser as is wrongly reported) who knows what would have happened. (The attack on Pearl harbour ended Kennedy's ambitions for President, which were then passed onto his eldest remaining son Jack)

One thing is clear it may be a good job for them Japan did attack, as If the UK had fallen, the Axis would control every continent other than America and sure as anything, the axis would have invaded the USA and Canada where the Royal Family and British, French governments would have been residing and trying to survive.

Would Canada with any remaining British, Canadian, French forces along with USA have defeated the rest of the world, highly unlikely?

Probably why I hate when American's cite that they won us the war

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012, 15:00:54 BST
Whom do you vote for spinovski, the Karl Marx appreciation movement

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012, 15:03:57 BST
The problem with this post is its full of truth, mixed with conjecture to present a believable but wholly unrealistic explanation of events, this much is clear to anyone who cares to read and find things out, I need not point out any further examples.

Its a bit like the Bible

Posted on 9 May 2012, 15:07:24 BST
easytiger says:
Or Wikipedia.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012, 15:13:29 BST
LOL, I dunno Wiki can be good for some things, like episode guides and air dates of cartoon, drama series etc.

But there is some woopies on there too.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012, 20:57:17 BST
gille liath says:
It would be more accurate to attribute that to the much-maligned EEC / EU.

Posted on 10 May 2012, 08:36:31 BST
easytiger says:
Oh really? The much maligned (in its present state) EEC/EU was a result of the US conditions of the Marshal Plan, the major one being the elimination of trade barriers and tarriffs between nations-except of course the US.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2012, 12:43:06 BST
gille liath says:
No - it wasn't.

Posted on 10 May 2012, 15:02:55 BST
easytiger says:
Well that's a very comprehensive opinion.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  42
Total posts:  335
Initial post:  30 Apr 2012
Latest post:  3 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers